Видео

Even solidify modifier is just doubling the image with a space between .

If you put solidify modifier on a plane which has some transparent parts, then the sides will just be transparent, hence your double image with space in between. The solidify only thickens the existing geometry so you must cut your plane to the exact shape of the box first for the modifier to create side thickness where you cut it, and make sure to remove the alpha in the shader in this case.

I have a few of them planned, stay tuned!

I have a master degree in engineering, which might be useful to learn this but I don't find it really hard after the initial learning curve, it just need practice and getting used to :)

@@alexandre.albisser Thank you Alex, this really help me to try practicing more, cuz it feels overwhelming :') you work is highly appreciated ! THANK YOU FOR EXISTING !

The curve to mesh tool indeed adds much faces so you can adjust the fibers settings, ply counts, as well as curve resolution and so on to lower face count, An other solution would be to bake the created mesh to a texture, which might be a bit tricky to do with blender's bake options but I think you should be able to convert everything to a texte. For the dimpling and so on, you should be able to do this by using the shader attrbutes (UV Thread and so on) my tool creates, which is a UV map flowing along the curve. More precise method for this should be included in the next version of the asset pack!

Yes it is, you just set up the capture attribute node, and plug a vector in the empty sockets. Or go to the node settings and add an input like you would with the geometry node modifier inputs.

@@alexandre.albisser Thank you boss

@@alexandre.albisser One last question i am facing some issue with the factor value they are coming in stack uniformly not at randomise value even tho i have followed your steps may be i have missed something

Thanks for your purchase! Of course, you can reach out to me via Instagram or email, but make sure to provide enough information to troubleshoot the potential issue!

@@alexandre.albisser I figured it out in the meantime. It had something to do with my UV's. I had not proparly placed my seams when unwrapping. I also made sure it were edgeloops as well

Okay, not to be a downer but correcting the normals alone wasn't enough and it's still not resolved. The objects are shaped like origami figures so maybe they are too pointed or sharp for this type of geometry node setup?

Just moved around the nodes a bit and added a "realize instances"

If the aspect ratio matches, then the method of unwrapping the UVs from the top view with "Project from view (bounds)" should ensure that your image entirely fills the puzzle :)

@@alexandre.albisser Thanks for replying, I think I understand now! :) The bounds option projects uvs with the bounds of the selected geometry in mind.

@@realxrust More preciselyy from the documentation: "Project from View takes the current view in the 3D View and flattens the mesh as it appears. Use this option if you are using a picture of a real object as a UV Texture for an object that you have modeled. You will get some stretching in areas where the model recedes away from you. Options With Bounds will do the same as Project from View but with Scale to Bounds and Correct Aspect activated."

Thanks a lot! But you could argue there's not much art here as those are mainly product commercials with often little real artistic intent

There's a whole other tutorial about that! :)

It should be the same, sometimes nodes sockets are renamed in newer blender versions but functionality should be kept.

I addressed this in the tutorial, you must use other coordinate system than UV for the back (generated or object for example) or it will indeed be displaced Alternatively you can generate a second uv map on the card, and project all from view perpendicular to the cards surface once the array modifiers are applied.

@@alexandre.albisser Yes and the back texture is using a generated system, exactly the same node setup as in the video. I may have to create the second UV map method. Would you apply array modifiers and then lay cards out in the x*y arrangement to then generate the second UV map?

@@Sam-xs9kr if you want allbm cards to have the same UV on the back, it would be best to have them stacked so you can project the same UV on all of them. I might update this tutorial as my new method uses a small geonodes tree and is more convenient for this part!

@@alexandre.albisser Oh right, that makes more sense for sure. Thank you I will give it a go!

Glad you liked it! I don't have anything else on that particular project, but I have yet to make videos on a lot of projects I did since... For the cutting cards, in my case they are not even cut, just animated a slight wobble and that does it! In your case you might get along with animating the edge split along a selected edge loop (existing, or added with the knife tool) and distorting the two sides, hope that can be helpful!

@alexandre.albisser nice! Looking forward to the release of new videos then! And thank you, that does give me plenty to experiment with!

Glad you like it!

Glad you enjoy it!

Well this one one year ago so probable 3.6 or something like that, but consider I am always working with the latest version!

Thank you! Cheers!

The issue you might be having is trying to join curves of different types together (bezier with poly, nurbs with bezier, etc.) make sure to convert all curves to the same types first, that might solve your problem!

A few other people have asked about this so there should be some answer in the comments, but Alternatively you can generate a second uv map on the card, and project all from view perpendicular to the cards surface once the array modifiers are applied.

Merci ! Je ne pense pas, cela réduirait au maximum le node tree de 15% en enlevant un peu de vector math, tout en rendant les explications plus complexes pour les non matheux, donc ce tutoriel serait loin d'être le meilleur exemple pour passer aux matrix nodes.

​@@alexandre.albisser Je comprends ton point de vue :) Je me permets de suggérer ça car tu n'expliques pas vraiment les maths utilisées pour arriver au but dans cette vidéo. Donc pour un novice sans ces connaissances, vector math ou matrix, je suppose que l'incompréhension reste la même. 🤔 Il me semblait alors que l'objectif ici était surtout de montrer comment créer le tool pour arriver à ses fins, sans forcément comprendre tout le processus, ce qui est tout à fait acceptable. 👍