magneto Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Hi, I am doing a tutorial where I have to subtract an extruded line with thickness from a grid (also has thickness from PolyExtrude SOP). The author suggest the normals are wrong, which I can't really tell without turning on normals, so I add a Reverse SOP, and then subtract B (grid) from A (line). But when I display the result, I get what seems to look like a wireframe model with points visible. So I just see points in my viewport with normals I think. I forgot to take a screenshot but the resulting geometry is not visible in the shaded style. It always looks like how I described it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsan parizi Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 It's always a good idea to upload a simple version of your file when you have a question like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 It's always a good idea to upload a simple version of your file when you have a question like this. I have the example at home. Will post a screenshot after work because I am sure it's easily guessed from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 I have the example at home. Will post a screenshot after work because I am sure it's easily guessed from it. Ok not sure what the issue is but if I use flat shaded the model shows, smooth shaded the model disappears. Is this common? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsan parizi Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Ok not sure what the issue is but if I use flat shaded the model shows, smooth shaded the model disappears. Is this common? I had that problem with huge models before. does it render correctly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 I had that problem with huge models before. does it render correctly? No it doesn't. Model is probably 10k polys max, not uber high res or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsan parizi Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Cookie is a bit tricky, sometimes doesn't give the best result, depends on your geo. Since I don't know how your geo looks like, I can just suggest try turning off pre-convex geometry and play with 3D tolerance, maybe that helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 Cookie is a bit tricky, sometimes doesn't give the best result, depends on your geo. Since I don't know how your geo looks like, I can just suggest try turning off pre-convex geometry and play with 3D tolerance, maybe that helps! Here is a pic of it, as you can see it's not very high res: But it makes sense cookie is the problem because without it, everything is good. Also pre convex didn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 Putting a Facet SOP fixes the issue, which the author of the tutorial also had to do, and using the option pre-compute normals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim c Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Learn to love the Facet SOP. All hail the Facet. Seriously, it's really cool. Your going through the roadbuilding tutorials over at cmi? very cool stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 Learn to love the Facet SOP. All hail the Facet. Seriously, it's really cool. Your going through the roadbuilding tutorials over at cmi? very cool stuff! Yeah the Facet SOP reigned down upon the problem Actually I was doing the CmiVFX Houdini introduction where in the last chapter he was showing how to build a bridge, where it digs tunnels inside the mountain. Is the Cookie SOP problematic frequently though? I know polygonal boolean operations are complex, but I thought Houdini's would be much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim c Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 For the things I've used it on, I haven't had many issues, other than I usually had to use the User specified options. My limited experience with it makes it feel more stable than bool operations in modo 401. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 For the things I've used it on, I haven't had many issues, other than I usually had to use the User specified options. My limited experience with it makes it feel more stable than bool operations in modo 401. Thanks, by user specified options do you mean, changing the default values? Max's booleans are garbage but it also has ProBooleans (by nPower): http://www.npowersoftware.com/booleans/pboverview.htm It produces pretty good results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim c Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Yes, you can specify exactly how the two shapes are combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Amion Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Yeah I find the CookieSOP in Houdini really solid. A couple of years back I did a particle simulation where I created beerfoam, bubbles of carbon dioxide rising to the surface that where cookied to the beerglass. It was a pretty heavy scene and CookieSOP did god job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.