Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Yes!
For selected surfaces or facets, you can only use one Dynamic thickened object per node. You have to duplicate the node to apply another Dynamic thickened object.
Thanks for the explanations. I'll play around with it and see if I can accomplish what I want.
Meanwhile, I've been selecting facets and static thickening a cylinder. I created some new surfaces along the way and then applied some goofy shaders. The white cylinder primitive on the left became that weird thing on the right. Don't ask my how I did it. I wouldn't be able to recreate the same thing.
I am fascinated by creating weird things with the thickener. I also used mesh grabber on this one. This one started as a single sphere.
I'm having a problem, or maybe a misunderstanding about how things are supposed to work.
I created a primitive cylinder, selected some facets and created a static thickened object with "New surface for duplicated facets" checked. Cylinder-thick was crated. Everything looked good. I changed the base colors of the new surfaces (Border-th and Default-new).
Then I selected Cylinder-thick, selected some it its facets, and applied the same static thickening settings. A Cylinder-thick-thick object was created, but the selected facets were not thickened. The Surfaces pane shows that more new surfaces were created (Border-th-new and Default-new-new), but the Tool Settings pane for the Geometry Editor does not show new surfaces. In fact, the Tool Settings pane shows that the Count for Botder-th and Default were increased instead of adding new surfaces.
I looked in the DS log and it says:
2021-09-14 16:03:37.467 WARNING: ..\..\..\..\..\src\sdksource\shapes\dzfacetmesh.cpp(8026): Index out of range in DzFacetMesh::getMaterialGroup()
2021-09-14 16:03:37.467 WARNING: ..\..\..\..\..\src\sdksource\shapes\dzfacetmesh.cpp(8026): Index out of range in DzFacetMesh::getMaterialGroup()
I think I just don't understand the way to get the uniform UV stretching. I tried both static and dynamic thickening (got the same results with same settings). I started with a primitive plane. I used border subdivision 5 and protrusion 100%. I thickened selected facets. The result is as far from uniform as I could imagine. Where am I going wrong?
Edit: Maybe I don't understand what "uniform" means in this context. The scale of the texture on the border is so different from the scale of the texture on the original surface. That is what doesn't look uniform to me. I guess the stretching is uniform.
I am using DS 4.15.0.30 Public Beta.
I'm still trying to understand this. This is a plane thickened with All Facets, viewed from the bottom and top. I created a new surface for the duplicated facets and changed them to plain white, so I could tell what was added. The stretched UV looks different from bottom and top. It looks like there is one part of the border stretched more than the other part and that more stretched part wraps around from top to bottom.
My real goal is for the stretched border to be rounded (protrusion and subD) and to match in scale with the rest of the object. Is that possible?
It's tricky. Set the Draw Style in the Viewport to Wireframe of Wireframe lite, and you'll see the thickened facets... inside the cylinder.
The plugin thickens the facets following their normal direction. In the original object, their normal points outside. When you use the all facets mode, the thickened object will have two sides, their normals pointing to opposite directions. The facets that remain in the same position as those of the original object, are the inverted ones. In the partial thickened object, the thickened facets will also have two sides, but the non-thickened facets will have only one, that of the flipped normals.
In your case, if you selected the facet with flipped normals, use a negative offset.
Moreover, the Dynamic thickened object doesn't work In more than a "layer", because they're updated at loading, erasing any selections in the first Dynamic object.
They're uniform in the subdivisions of the borders. But not respect any facets outside the border. It's a stretching of the boundary facets of the original object, so the border facets and the boundary ones have to share the same region of the map.
Wow, that is tricky! Your explanation is very useful for understanding how it works. I don't think I ever would have figured that out by myself, but it makes sense.
What caused index out of range errors and polygons to evidently be added to incorrect surfaces (as evidenced by the Tool Settings pane)? Is it possible to select particular facets that cause this problem?
OK, I am starting to understand the algorithm better with this explanation. That also explains what I see with the resolution of the original node dramatically affecting the UV stretching. With a high res original node, the border facets are tiny compared to the border facets of a base res node. So a little tiny border facet gets stretched out over a very large highly thickened object.
Low Res Original Plane thickened a lot
High Res Original Plane thickened a lot
The second layer isn't recognizing the Border-th-new surface.To avoid this, change the name of the "Border-th" in the first thickened object., and then create the next thickened object from this.
@Alberto you have been so kind and patient with answering my questions, I'd like to ask now about scaling duplicated facets and selected surfaces. I tried some experiments and can't figure out what is happening.
I created a primitive cylinder and used geometry editor to select some facets and create surfaces from them. My cylinder has two surfaces, Top and Bottom. I colored the Top surface magenta and the bottom surface green. Then I created some static thickened objects from the selected Top surface and various alignment options. I used these settings:
Subdivisions in border = 3
Protrusion of border = 50%
Facets to thicken = From selected surfaces (I had selected the Top surface of the cylinder)
Stretch UV map for the border
New surface for duplicated facets (after it was created, I colored it yellow)
Scaling duplicated facets = 110%
I don't understand the shapes that were created. When aligned to the bottom. there is a big bulge at the bottom. When aligned to the top, the top is not very thick. When aligned to the center, there is a bulge at the bottom again. I assume the bulge has something to do with border protrusion; they all have that setting but they don't all have the bulge.
Finally I created a static thickened object with All Facets aligned center for comparison. It doesn't have any bulges sticking out.
I'm really confused.
Edit: I added the annotated image to show which thickened object used which alignment.
Beautiful example!
Normal directions thing again. And the protrusion, of course. The primitive you used was an open cylinder. The normals of the ends point upwards (the top end) or downwards (the bottom end). When you chose the top alignment, the internal cylinder end is aligned with the external one. The normals of both point upwards, so closing this gap doesn't create a lateral bulge. On the other hand, when you aligned to the bottom, the end of the external cylinder points downwards, whereas the normals in the middle of the internal cylinder are pointing outwards, thus the closing of the bottom gap will cause the bulge you're seeing, as the corresponding edges are aligned.
The fourth thickened cylinder you show, I cannot replicate. The center alignment shouldn't create a bulge. Could you retry it?
I can reproduce all of the thickened objects just like in my sample image. I saved the cylinder tube I created as a prop, and I attached it here. Maybe your cylinder was created differently. I removed both the top and bottom of the primitive cylinder with the Geometry Editor. I didn't mention that in my original message, so maybe that was misleading, although you noticed that I had an open cylinder.
Some terminology: the edges are segments between facets. Open edges are those that are part of only a facet.
To be more precise, a vertex has as many normals as facets it belongs.
Let's see a plane:
The red arrows represent the normals of some vertices. Here all the normals point upwards.
This is the thickened plane:
The labeled as Plane normal are those of the vertices in the Plane's facets, the Border normals are those of the vertices in the Border's facets. The vertices in the edges between border and plane have two different normals, one pointing in the same direction of the neighbouring plane normals and the other in the lateral direction. In the image only the border normals of these vertices are showed. The border normals are the responsible of the direction of the bulges in the subdivides borders.
When thickening of all facets, the plugin copies the original vertices, flip their normals when thickness is positive (or Scale of duplicate facets higher than 100%); next it copies the original vertices again and translate the vertices, flipping their normals if the thickness is negative (or the scale lower than 100%). Finally, it joins the open edges to create the border. The vertices' normals of the facets in the border will follow the Border normals as pictured in the image.
In a thickening of selected facets, again the plugin copies the original vertices, and flip their normals when thickness is positive (or scale >100%). But now, it copies only the selected facets, flipping their normals if the thickness is negative (or scale < 100%), and joins the open edges of this copy to the equivalent edges in the first copy. But the latter aren't open edges. As showed in the following image, the plugin will try something like the remarked border normal instead of the one of the previous image:
This could cause the oblique bulges in the border, depending on the alignment of the equivalent edges.
Normally, the vertices' normals of original objects point outwards, but not always. In some objects, specially of old products, the normals point inwards. You can distinguish between the two cases by enabling, in Daz Studio, Edit - Preferences - Interface - Per Pixel Shading, and setting the Draw Style of the Viewer to Texture Shaded. See the following image:
The left sphere has its normals pointing outwars; the right, pointing inwards. For pointing inwards, the texture will always appear black.
I see. I create the open cylinder using the same method you used. But as the dimensions aren't exactly the same, the results are different. The problem is the alignment is imprecise when using the partial thickening. You can see that although you choose center alignment, the internal and external cylinder sections aren't center-aligned.
Wow, thank you for taking the time to describe and illustrate the normals situation. I am still trying to digest and understand all of that. You are eligible for Daz sainthood for being so helpful!
You commented that "The problem is the alignment is imprecise when using the partial thickening. You can see that although you choose center alignment, the internal and external cylinder sections aren't center-aligned.". Does that mean it is broken and you can fix it? Or does it mean that you can't fix it, because you don't have access to the precise info you need? Or does it mean that that is how it is designed and intended to work?
I did some more experiments to try to help me understand what is happening with the various alignments when thickening is limited to a selected surface with scaling duplicated facets. This time I simplified things by not stretching the UV for the border and not using SubD or protrusion on the border. Instead I varied only the "Scale of duplicated facets".
When Top alignment is selected, it looks like the duplicated facets are aligned with the original facets on their top edge as I would expect. The border then connects the duplicated facet edges with the original facet edges as I would expect. This seems predictable and understandable.
When Bottom alignment is selected, it looks like the bottom of the border is aligned with the bottom of the selected surface, instead of the bottom of the duplicated facets being aligned with the bottom of the selected surface facets. In your description above, it sounded to me like the bottom of the duplicated facets should be the thing aligned with the original facets. But instead, the duplicate facets are way up high. I still don't understand this. In my previous tests I used a scaling of only 110%, so this elevation of duplicated facets was not so apparent.
I didn't try Center alignment this time, because Bottom alignment had me confused enough!
In the screenshots below, the original tube is on the left. Scale of duplicated facets varies from 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200%. I colored the new surfaces yellow and left the border default gray.
Scale duplicated facets, alignment Top, looks like I would expect. Top of duplicated facets are aligned to top of selected surface facets.
Scale duplicated facets, alignment Bottom is confusing me. Duplicated facets are not aligned to the bottom of the selected surface facets.
It isn't broken, The alignment was designed for all facets thickening of scaling duplicate facets method. The scaling method was intended as an alternative for very symmetrical and complete objects only. I was thinking of limiting the partial thickening only to the default method; but, finally, I allowed it in the scaling one, too: Maybe it could be useful for someone.
Good to know. Thank you!
Thank you for the explanation. I think I'll stick to the other method, which I understand better.
This started as a plane! The shader I applied made the thickened object (selected facets) kind of psychedelic.
Looks amazing and weird, at the same time, @barbult
Thanks, I know you are fond of trying things to see what happens, like I am.
Just wonder, if thickener plugin would work with https://www.daz3d.com/marsa-pipe-dream
which I am enjoying a lot.
I don't have Pipe Dream, so I can't try it. If it is geometry, it should work. The pipes look pretty low res to keep polygon count under control, though. What goal are you trying to achieve by thickening the pipes? Do you not have thickener to try it for yourself?
Yes, I have also purchased thickener myself, but have not experimented with it yet.
I am watching your experiments with great interest, to see what you discover first.
Basically, I have no idea yet, how to use it in my workflow.
I noticed you updated the plugin, what was updated?
See the section What’s new, page 17 of the manual.