Booleans with SubD surfaces - Impossible???

News concerning 3D DCC business
User avatar
Mathaeus
Posts: 1778
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 21:11
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: Booleans with SubD surfaces - Impossible???

Post by Mathaeus » 29 Oct 2013, 15:10

NNois wrote:well... the resulting mesh is pretty good !!!
if you click on their bottom right gallery item here and look at the wires http://groboto.com/showgallery/
so, more or less, like Power Booleans for Max - and.... by courtesy of AD, Maya and Maya LT , too :)

NNois
Posts: 754
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 20:33

Re: Booleans with SubD surfaces - Impossible???

Post by NNois » 30 Oct 2013, 11:48

Mathaeus wrote:
NNois wrote:well... the resulting mesh is pretty good !!!
if you click on their bottom right gallery item here and look at the wires http://groboto.com/showgallery/
so, more or less, like Power Booleans for Max - and.... by courtesy of AD, Maya and Maya LT , too :)
hummm, a very little more or less then ;-)

reberhart
Posts: 14
Joined: 12 Apr 2011, 20:28

Re: Booleans with SubD surfaces - Impossible???

Post by reberhart » 08 Nov 2013, 16:30

Mathaeus wrote:
NNois wrote:well... the resulting mesh is pretty good !!!
if you click on their bottom right gallery item here and look at the wires http://groboto.com/showgallery/
so, more or less, like Power Booleans for Max - and.... by courtesy of AD, Maya and Maya LT , too :)
If Power Booleans had user-definable bevels automatically generated between surfaces (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't).

User avatar
Mathaeus
Posts: 1778
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 21:11
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: Booleans with SubD surfaces - Impossible???

Post by Mathaeus » 08 Nov 2013, 21:36

reberhart wrote:
Mathaeus wrote:
If Power Booleans had user-definable bevels automatically generated between surfaces (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't).
As far as I know, it doesn't. However, by taking the pictures of Groboto work. it seems that Power Boolean relies on much much stronger algorithm. Power Boolean tries to create only quads and triangles as output, usable for subdividing later. Groboto seems to do just the cut on subdivided mesh, where some cuts looks like a good candidate, to be interpreted as non manifold in Renderman compliant renderers, for example.

After all, if someone wants, really no big deal to add these user defined level to Power Booleans.

In practice, no one of two has examples of quality, even close to examples of NURBS modeling through the decades - let's say, like this one, created in MoI, which is 'light' variance of Rhino - you get it for 300 bucks.

I intentionally said 'more or less', trying to be benevolent to yet another nice workflow trick, based on "cheaper than usual" tech, just like the everything in Modo. Except the renderer.

Just personally, if this is all of modeling for Modo 801, I'll get MoI, instead of Modo upgrade.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests