And Plasticity will only get better with time at doing these things ! It will shake up hard surface modelling that is absolutely what the dev set out to do and he will succeed at this !
@@nikita.kapustin seems like I was one of the first who shifted early, cause I still hate poly modelling, and I hate people who masturbate on topology too much
@@eviv8010 well, I hate people who hate people for good topology. dude, this is important when you need to do a good uv for textures! its literally needed in all areas of design. but obviously if youre doing shit, you dont care about topology
@@nikita.kapustin dont take it as a hate , we are all greatfull for you posting tutorials! Plasticity is amazing program but it still isnt fully capable to involve in into 3D workflow for certain areas. Other than that its beautiful piece of software!
@@jakub2jagrik It will only get better from here the dev wants it to become the go to program for a lot of hard surface work and I 100% believe he will succeed at this considering this is only very new , In two years time I am sure we will both look back at it and be surprised by how far its come ! I know many professional VFX artists that are super excited for how this will develop in the future and see the potential !
I really love it when you are so euphoric about Plasticity. It's really good and easy to use. But if you have a moderately complex object and want to take it into Blender via OBJ to unwrap it, you almost have more work in Blender with retopology. During this time I also modeled the model in Blender and with a better topology than in Plasticity. I'm hoping hard that the OBJ interface will improve over time and export an object better. In your video you said that you never unwrap. I would like that though to have a good interface and import and texture in Adobe Substance Painter.
Are you telling me that when you export from Plasticity it looks angular? I think you are not exporting well, because everything I export looks the way it looks in Plasticity. If it is round, it looks round, now if you are making a macro shot, it may look faceted. But that's what I said, it all depends on the purpose and your workflow. The same as for organic modeling I would use zbrush and not Plasticity, because it depends on the purpose of your project, I would use one tool or another. I don't know why people insist on doing everything with the same software. Each software has its advantages over the other, so it is good to have a good workflow, depending on the work, video games, cinematic, concept, product rendering, animation, etc. .... Everyone uses the tools they feel more comfortable with and adapts them to their way of working. That's why you should not discard any tool and even less compare software that has been developed for a long time, with others that have started recently. But just the fact that it is already being compared with software with more time, says a lot about Plasticity. And finally, it is not a question of using one or the other, the two complement each other. That Plasticity still lacks? it is clear, but with the little time it has been on the market, I see it as a very powerful tool and it has accelerated my work a lot. And I've been using Max, Maya, Zbrush, Blender for more than 15 years. But of course, this is just my opinion based on my experience.
Yes it depends what one needs. I just never used Substance painter, that's why I never had to unwrap. Most things can be done within materials procedural/projections.
@@raulgomez8523 True, but keep in mind that not everybody has the ability to learn 6-7 different programs, with different workflow. I'm not sculpting p.e., just doing hardsurface modeling in Blender. Export it in Substance Painter for texturing and Photoshop for final post processing. I took a look to Zbrush, but I had the impression that without a graduated study, this software cannot be used. So tell me a good reason why we should learn that amount of software just to model some products modeling or hardsurface modeling. I just forgot, Marmoset or whatever to render all that stuff...
There are many people obsessed with topology and it matters less and less, but it is clear that it depends on the purpose of the model whether it has a good typology or not. I've been modelling for many years and when I need a good typology, I do it to the model I've made in Zbrush, Plasticity, etc. .... It all depends on the workflow of each one, some model directly with good topology and others do it later. It doesn't matter how you do it, if it looks good and works, that's it. I get the impression that those who complain don't want to learn other software or want certain processes to be done automatically by program X. The important thing is to have a good workflow that gives you good results and doesn't waste your time. Congratulations on your videos. By the way, you have lifted the model I was going to make 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Best regards.
when I heard about Fusion 360 I moved from 3ds max instantly, I thought to myself, why the fuck I spend 90% time moving those fucking vertices to get a "nice shading"...and its still not perfect...*.step workflow is perfect, if you want more creativity you can additionally use zbrush.
It's not just about topology. I only work with high resolution objects and if I have a hole in an object with 128 vertices, then I want to have the 128 vertices in Blender, 3dMax, Maya, etc. I want it to look round and not angular. I don't care much about quads. If I work with booleans I get a lot of NGONS and if I don't add deformations or animate afterwards then everything looks good and I don't have artifacts. The important thing is the look. Unfortunately, the export module of Plasticity is still very weak.
@@nikita.kapustin Exactly. I get the impression that people are learning with tutorials and very old courses in which topology was very important, but fortunately that is becoming less and less important, but I repeat, it depends on the purpose. In my last 6 jobs, I have not done topology or UVS, which before, in at least 4 of them, I would have had to do that process.
I tried to export several times a simple cylinder with few bevels, and all have basic mistakes in geometry (you can see it export in preview and after exporting). It doest work on primitive geometry, so how it can work on complex one? Unfortunately, it is for me usless files, none of the created elements in Plasticity are editable after exporting, they are just floating objects. I tried over 10 various export versions to export to Modo. I can create it 10 times faster in Modo, from scratch. All different objects created in latest Plasticity, exported as OBJ with no positive outcome. I am sure I have not made any mistake, since I have followed several tutorials. Unfortunately Plasticity is NOT for me. Looks simple, but it is NOT.
"Best cad to mesh geometry export" Then goes on to show several unexplainable ngon problems. ^^;; I love how easy it is to model in plasticity without having to worry about edge flow first but I'm worried about topology. Especially since plasticity is meant to be a small acompanying app. It's export feature should be high quality for the entire product to be of best use. I hope the export feature will get better and have high prio.
Can you convert STEP format files (nurbs) into Polygons and vice versa? And second question, can you export a polygon 3D model as STEP format which will be applicable/readable into SolidWorks, AutoCAD or Fusion?
Your clock is also a really simple example, do this with a more complex part and unwrap it afterwards. This shows the true ability and understanding of the settings, but not with such simple surfaces.
That's the problem, you want software to do everything. You have to learn how to do the whole process, because it is done one way or another. AI is good to help in the process, not to do everything.
I'm finally diving into Plasticity after seeing it on Twitter a few months back. I'm really intrigued! Do you find the OBJs exported from Plasticity have better results than when you import STP CAD files directly into C4D and use its native CAD to polygon tool?
Whats your opinion on using plasticity for movie production assets? Seems to be a good tool for quick concepting for shapes, but for movies a clean quad topology is a must. Or is there a good workflow other than manual retopology to get this to a high quality topology
I personally don't have experience with movie production assets. Plasticity is perfect for concepting, product rendering, game assets etc. But when it comes to movie I guess, it's better to model with subd workflow or so.
What about UVs? last weak i got with a STEP 3d model from a client wich if a import it directly in 3ds max i gets ugly with triangles obviously, i was thought in import the STEP into Plasticity to see if i can re imported it with better topology, what do you think? thanks!
It's cool how the exporter behave so nice with regular shapes like the ones in your video, unfortunately this doesn't work in more complex models. I export from plasticity to 3DSMax and still there's a lot of things that need to be fixed so the topology works fine. :(
If you dont actually care about the topology, you can just import the STEP file in 3Ds Max. If you care abou topology you can try a bunch of things like Quadify (the modifier) + Retopology. What helps is to break down the mesh a bit into multiple elements and that makes Quadify and Retopo work much better. Another solution is to use Rhino, import the STEP file there and export as quads, from my experience Rhino (version 7 and above) has the best mesh exporter, miles ahead of Plasticity.
The problem you have when importing it in 3ds Max, is if you export it with Ngons, 3ds Max, does not get along very well with Ngons. Export it in another mode and you will see how Max takes it well, but of course, depending on what you are going to use it for, you will have to fix the topology or not. That's why I take it to Blender, because it works well with Ngons and it's easier if I have to fix the topology or I have to do something else.
@@raulgomez8523 Max does fine with ngons as long as the smoothing is exported correctly. I work with manufacturing parts alot that dont require further modification and I end up with many ngons and Max works just fine with them. The problem is when you try to modify the ngons and smoothing breaks, thats when you end up with problems. But that happens in C4D, Max, Maya and Blender. The advantage Max has is the smoothing groups, which in most cases will fix those smoothing issues. Like I said earlier, you want the best mesh exporter: use Rhino 7 and above, nothing comes close.
@@E_Clip Ahhhh, perfect, it gave me several problems and that's why I stopped using it, but it's good to know what you say. I have not tried Rhino for exporting, I will have to try it, but having that program for exporting only, does not convince me much, but I assure you that I will try it to see if it speeds up my workflow in depending on which jobs, thanks.
![Plasticity | CAD Precision Modeling [Tutorial for Beginners]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0kQJvNmcV20/mqdefault.jpg)
And Plasticity will only get better with time at doing these things ! It will shake up hard surface modelling that is absolutely what the dev set out to do and he will succeed at this !
Agree 100% with you. It feels like a huge paradigm shift for 3D
@@nikita.kapustin seems like I was one of the first who shifted early, cause I still hate poly modelling, and I hate people who masturbate on topology too much
@@eviv8010 well, I hate people who hate people for good topology. dude, this is important when you need to do a good uv for textures! its literally needed in all areas of design. but obviously if youre doing shit, you dont care about topology
The real fun begins when you try to UV unwrap models from plasticity.
99% in all my cases I never needed a unwrap. And in 1% an ngon mesh is fine for unwrap
@@nikita.kapustin dont take it as a hate , we are all greatfull for you posting tutorials! Plasticity is amazing program but it still isnt fully capable to involve in into 3D workflow for certain areas. Other than that its beautiful piece of software!
@@jakub2jagrikI took it as thinly disguised hate.
yeah exactly. And it's just the beginning!:)
@@jakub2jagrik It will only get better from here the dev wants it to become the go to program for a lot of hard surface work and I 100% believe he will succeed at this considering this is only very new , In two years time I am sure we will both look back at it and be surprised by how far its come ! I know many professional VFX artists that are super excited for how this will develop in the future and see the potential !
I really love it when you are so euphoric about Plasticity. It's really good and easy to use. But if you have a moderately complex object and want to take it into Blender via OBJ to unwrap it, you almost have more work in Blender with retopology. During this time I also modeled the model in Blender and with a better topology than in Plasticity.
I'm hoping hard that the OBJ interface will improve over time and export an object better.
In your video you said that you never unwrap. I would like that though to have a good interface and import and texture in Adobe Substance Painter.
Are you telling me that when you export from Plasticity it looks angular? I think you are not exporting well, because everything I export looks the way it looks in Plasticity. If it is round, it looks round, now if you are making a macro shot, it may look faceted. But that's what I said, it all depends on the purpose and your workflow. The same as for organic modeling I would use zbrush and not Plasticity, because it depends on the purpose of your project, I would use one tool or another. I don't know why people insist on doing everything with the same software. Each software has its advantages over the other, so it is good to have a good workflow, depending on the work, video games, cinematic, concept, product rendering, animation, etc. .... Everyone uses the tools they feel more comfortable with and adapts them to their way of working. That's why you should not discard any tool and even less compare software that has been developed for a long time, with others that have started recently. But just the fact that it is already being compared with software with more time, says a lot about Plasticity. And finally, it is not a question of using one or the other, the two complement each other. That Plasticity still lacks? it is clear, but with the little time it has been on the market, I see it as a very powerful tool and it has accelerated my work a lot. And I've been using Max, Maya, Zbrush, Blender for more than 15 years. But of course, this is just my opinion based on my experience.
Yes it depends what one needs. I just never used Substance painter, that's why I never had to unwrap. Most things can be done within materials procedural/projections.
@@raulgomez8523 True, but keep in mind that not everybody has the ability to learn 6-7 different programs, with different workflow. I'm not sculpting p.e., just doing hardsurface modeling in Blender. Export it in Substance Painter for texturing and Photoshop for final post processing.
I took a look to Zbrush, but I had the impression that without a graduated study, this software cannot be used. So tell me a good reason why we should learn that amount of software just to model some products modeling or hardsurface modeling. I just forgot, Marmoset or whatever to render all that stuff...
You're doing great Nikita! 😎
There are many people obsessed with topology and it matters less and less, but it is clear that it depends on the purpose of the model whether it has a good typology or not. I've been modelling for many years and when I need a good typology, I do it to the model I've made in Zbrush, Plasticity, etc. .... It all depends on the workflow of each one, some model directly with good topology and others do it later. It doesn't matter how you do it, if it looks good and works, that's it. I get the impression that those who complain don't want to learn other software or want certain processes to be done automatically by program X. The important thing is to have a good workflow that gives you good results and doesn't waste your time. Congratulations on your videos. By the way, you have lifted the model I was going to make 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Best regards.
when I heard about Fusion 360 I moved from 3ds max instantly, I thought to myself, why the fuck I spend 90% time moving those fucking vertices to get a "nice shading"...and its still not perfect...*.step workflow is perfect, if you want more creativity you can additionally use zbrush.
It's not just about topology. I only work with high resolution objects and if I have a hole in an object with 128 vertices, then I want to have the 128 vertices in Blender, 3dMax, Maya, etc. I want it to look round and not angular.
I don't care much about quads. If I work with booleans I get a lot of NGONS and if I don't add deformations or animate afterwards then everything looks good and I don't have artifacts. The important thing is the look. Unfortunately, the export module of Plasticity is still very weak.
"if it looks good and works, that's it"
I agree with that 100%
But all comes down what one needs and for what purpose the object will be used
@@nikita.kapustin Exactly. I get the impression that people are learning with tutorials and very old courses in which topology was very important, but fortunately that is becoming less and less important, but I repeat, it depends on the purpose. In my last 6 jobs, I have not done topology or UVS, which before, in at least 4 of them, I would have had to do that process.
Note: after exporting meshes OBJ to Modo all topology is visible on the final rendering, which make it horrible.
One thing I don't understand is - when you click quads, they're still triangulated.. when you click ngons, they're quads.. eh?
Telling us to look how perfect it is and start rotating panning and all the things someone can do to not let you look at it xD
😂
Great work and progress dear friend ! keep it up !❤❤
Thanks Fatima
I tried to export several times a simple cylinder with few bevels, and all have basic mistakes in geometry (you can see it export in preview and after exporting). It doest work on primitive geometry, so how it can work on complex one? Unfortunately, it is for me usless files, none of the created elements in Plasticity are editable after exporting, they are just floating objects. I tried over 10 various export versions to export to Modo. I can create it 10 times faster in Modo, from scratch. All different objects created in latest Plasticity, exported as OBJ with no positive outcome. I am sure I have not made any mistake, since I have followed several tutorials. Unfortunately Plasticity is NOT for me. Looks simple, but it is NOT.
This is insane!
Would love to see unwrapping and Substance painter process.
"Best cad to mesh geometry export" Then goes on to show several unexplainable ngon problems. ^^;; I love how easy it is to model in plasticity without having to worry about edge flow first but I'm worried about topology. Especially since plasticity is meant to be a small acompanying app. It's export feature should be high quality for the entire product to be of best use.
I hope the export feature will get better and have high prio.
It's just in 1.2 version. It's just starting out:D
Good job man
Can you convert STEP format files (nurbs) into Polygons and vice versa?
And second question, can you export a polygon 3D model as STEP format which will be applicable/readable into SolidWorks, AutoCAD or Fusion?
Your clock is also a really simple example, do this with a more complex part and unwrap it afterwards. This shows the true ability and understanding of the settings, but not with such simple surfaces.
What is a "complex part" in your understanding?
I honestly cannot wait to "AI" to come around and make retopology and UVs for us with a click of a button. Now that would be nice.
That's the problem, you want software to do everything. You have to learn how to do the whole process, because it is done one way or another. AI is good to help in the process, not to do everything.
Definitely will be the case at some point
Have you tried aligning normals in C4D?
For what?
@@nikita.kapustin for those errors when importing into C4D, select all polygons and run align normals command.
Thanks, I will try next time this issue occurs.
@@nikita.kapustin obj format is broken, never use it.
@@eviv8010 no fbx
I'm finally diving into Plasticity after seeing it on Twitter a few months back. I'm really intrigued!
Do you find the OBJs exported from Plasticity have better results than when you import STP CAD files directly into C4D and use its native CAD to polygon tool?
Haven't used the C4D tool for that.
Usually, of what I hear it produces much better results to export it from Plasticity/moi3d into a mesh
@@nikita.kapustin thanks! I’ll have to check out both programs
C4d might be better, lower poly count
Whats your opinion on using plasticity for movie production assets? Seems to be a good tool for quick concepting for shapes, but for movies a clean quad topology is a must. Or is there a good workflow other than manual retopology to get this to a high quality topology
I personally don't have experience with movie production assets.
Plasticity is perfect for concepting, product rendering, game assets etc. But when it comes to movie I guess, it's better to model with subd workflow or so.
What about UVs? last weak i got with a STEP 3d model from a client wich if a import it directly in 3ds max i gets ugly with triangles obviously, i was thought in import the STEP into Plasticity to see if i can re imported it with better topology, what do you think? thanks!
Depends on the complexity of the geometry. For something simple like this watch it works excellent.
It's cool how the exporter behave so nice with regular shapes like the ones in your video, unfortunately this doesn't work in more complex models. I export from plasticity to 3DSMax and still there's a lot of things that need to be fixed so the topology works fine. :(
What is a "complex model" in your understanding?
When it comes to "products" and hard surface stuff I never had any problems
If you dont actually care about the topology, you can just import the STEP file in 3Ds Max. If you care abou topology you can try a bunch of things like Quadify (the modifier) + Retopology. What helps is to break down the mesh a bit into multiple elements and that makes Quadify and Retopo work much better. Another solution is to use Rhino, import the STEP file there and export as quads, from my experience Rhino (version 7 and above) has the best mesh exporter, miles ahead of Plasticity.
The problem you have when importing it in 3ds Max, is if you export it with Ngons, 3ds Max, does not get along very well with Ngons. Export it in another mode and you will see how Max takes it well, but of course, depending on what you are going to use it for, you will have to fix the topology or not. That's why I take it to Blender, because it works well with Ngons and it's easier if I have to fix the topology or I have to do something else.
@@raulgomez8523 Max does fine with ngons as long as the smoothing is exported correctly. I work with manufacturing parts alot that dont require further modification and I end up with many ngons and Max works just fine with them. The problem is when you try to modify the ngons and smoothing breaks, thats when you end up with problems. But that happens in C4D, Max, Maya and Blender. The advantage Max has is the smoothing groups, which in most cases will fix those smoothing issues.
Like I said earlier, you want the best mesh exporter: use Rhino 7 and above, nothing comes close.
@@E_Clip Ahhhh, perfect, it gave me several problems and that's why I stopped using it, but it's good to know what you say. I have not tried Rhino for exporting, I will have to try it, but having that program for exporting only, does not convince me much, but I assure you that I will try it to see if it speeds up my workflow in depending on which jobs, thanks.
Want regular Cinema 4D tutorials
C4D/Octane renderings tutorial will come. I have 2 in the pipeline. Stay tuned
Not better than Mol or Fusion 360, you have to remesh everything for a high-end render.
Terrible topology, try using it for stimulation and then you'll understand why it's a terrible result
Yeah Nikita! Tell em to stop whining about bad topology! LOL!