Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
There are always some that sneer at what others do; it is sad for them, and shouldn't matter to the rest of us.
Results are what matter... Are we happy with what we produced, and in the time it took?
The tools we used, if we are happy with the above, were the correct ones for the job; that's ok then
. We can review the tools for the next job, if we feel it's appropriate.
There are multiple points brought up here and some have been addressed in the interviening posts. I'll try to put my spin on clarifying some of this and perhaps that will help some.
First, the issue about doing everything from scratch is a bit of a muddled issue. It is true that many of the tutorials are on how to 'build from scratch.' But, following that with the logic that Blender users therefore are focused on making everything from scratch and have no use for premade content, while seamingly logical is, well ... not.
As was mentioned, a lot of people use Blender (or any content creation tool) for modifying, kit bashing (piecing together parts of various models into a new whole,) or filling out a specific niche area like retexturing. So why, one might ask are the tutorials focused on making things from scratch? Good question. Basically, kit bashing is simply a shortcut to modeling from scratch but uses all of the same skillsets so as one learns to build from scratch, one learns to kit bash. The same goes for creating morphs on an object, using proportional editing to put a depression in a couch where someone is sitting or bringing clothing out where it is interesecting with the base model, etc..
The point is, while using Blender to modify existing models is faster then building everything from scratch, the learning process is the same. This also points out why anyone who uses Blender to build from scratch and would 'sneer' at people for kit bashing or any other use of Blender like this is ignorant and simply trying to fluff up their own ego, i.e. ignore them.
If one wants to use Blender to do something specific like morphs, they can focus on tutorials that address sculpting. If using it to do textures, then texturing, etc... It doesn't matter that the tutorial isn't 'how to bring in a DAZ figure and retexture it.' We all end up learning by finding tutorials and piecing together what we need. The start to finish type of learning process will usually only focus in the central track, that is using the tool as it's own environment, and always leave retrofitting type of workflows to the individual to fill in the blanks. There just isn't enough audience to justify custom training on a large scale, especially with how fast everything is changing in this industry now.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one has to master the tool to use it at all, but one does have to get a good understanding of the basics regardless of how they are going to use the tool and then branch off into the specific use-case they have after, and that branching off might be a bit of a hodge podge of fitting together 'what can, where can.'
The blanket scenario you mentioned is a perfect example. To do that, we need to know how to import/export in our desired format, which requires understanding the tradeoffs of various formats and the specific tasks, then it requires understanding the cloth sim features of Blender. If a tutorial covers rendering and we don't plan on doing the rendering, well no one is gluing someones eyes to the tutorial and saying "YOU MUST FINISH THIS TUTORIAL." Just skip to the part we need, go through it, and try to apply it to our test environment. Then, if we have the time and feel generous (or think it might be worth selling,) create a tutorial on what we did, start to finish (import, cloth sim, export, re-import into DAZ Studio) for others.
Finally, most tutorials are broken down into covering some subset of Blender. The concept of having to learn rigging (or any advanced task) if we never plan on rigging in Blender is just a non issue as one specifically has to look for 'Rigging in Blender' types of tutorials.
I think the overlying issue here for many people is that we would like a simple tool optimized for doing speicific tasks and Blender is not that. In fact, there are very few tools like that out there at the moment. Most content creation tools are generalized tools that do many things. The ones that are specialized, like zBrush, are expensive, still complex to learn, are still few/far between, and may not address our specific niche.
In the end, there are shortcuts to workflows, but not so much to the learning process itself right now. Perhaps some future version of Cortona/Siri will build custom education modules for us.
Most Blender users I've corresponded with to don't have any idea what DS is and you can explain it not really a modeler, so much is it's a "gateway drug to 3d" but I don't feel condemnation from them. I think most Blender users get enough of that "you're not really a modeler if you use Blender" from users of software that cost money (cost money = software, cost more money = better software) mentality that they would not be that snobby. Honesty I get weirder looks from people who don't know what is involved with 3D modeling and probably think Pixar hand draws all their cartoons still.
Well the first thing to check is if you can depress the wheel to 'click.' Most mice with two buttons and a wheel have the wheel act as the third button.
nope I already tried that and when I press the wheel button it goes to my main screen which shows which programs I have open and I can cycle through them it does nothing in blender when pressed but i can zoom in and out with it
Edit: just discovered if I hold shift and scroll I can pan up and down and if I hold ctrl and scroll I can go side to side and just scroll goes in and out...it just takes some perseverance and patience lol :)
OK, this is one of the reasons I get so put off with Blender. If I import in a model I've made that's got multiple polygroups or surface groups Blender imports them in as separate geometries. A newbie clicking around is going to have them all over the place in no time and frustrated. I had this issue with Genesis 1 (that's the last time I played around in Blender, yea, that long). I would think there was a way to move the entire piece of geometry or set it up so I'm not loosing my polygroups but don't have to worry about accidentally moving parts around. Here is a screen grab of my Training Top for Dawn imported in. As you can see there are 10 material zones or Polygroups. Blender, how I'm seeing it, is reading and loading the material zones rather than loading the entire top. I'd think the Training Top would be loaded in as it's whole object with perhaps a drop down with all 10 material zones under them as a grouped object. Instead it's coming in completely ungrouped. It's very off putting when you can't figure out how to get all these bits and pieces grouped so you don't worry about accidentally selecting one by accident and dragging it away from where it's proper placement is. I did that with this top and Ctrl Z wasn't working beause the mouse kicked right back in kept moving the polygroup until finally taking a gamble and hitting the Escape key (without knowing what it did) and it all snaped back into place and the mouse no longer moved anything! it was getting really frustrating.
Take a look at the wiki page on Grouping and Parenting Objects. For a quick solution: in edit mode, select all of the parts of the imported mesh group and use "ctl+p" to parent, or if yoiu prefer, root through the menus to find the 'parent' function. One item in the selection should have a lighter outline then the others, this will be the 'parent' object, which often doesn't matter for simple things but can.. for mor information, read the wiki. if all of the items have the same level of highlight, the selection might not have an 'active' selection defined. Again, read the wiki/ask more questions if this is an issue.
This brings up a point about learning Blender. There is often a simple solution to a given problem, but that solution varies by subtle contextual issues that is usually what makes it hard. In the end, we just have to learn not just the basic step for doing something but all of the 'but in this case' situations. However, and this is a big one, if we stick with it, one day these start to fall in place and it becomes much easier, second nature even. It's just that we automatically adjust to the various scenarios but in trying to help someone else we have to play 10k questions to identify the specific scenario.
The whole brainwashed idea if you pay more it's gotta be better. There is a gal in my salon that charges $110.00 for a cut, yea, really. I chage $65.00. I can bet you bottom dollar my cut is technically better and more stylish because I'm an artist from my soul on up. She's a "curly girl expert" and uses that as her selling point. The point of this is it's all over the place in every indsutry. Each to their own. Funny thing is, she's busier than I am. Perhaps I should raise my prices up that high and call my self some expert of some sort and that would PROBABLY get me more clients but I'm not going to do that, not in good conscious! There are always going to be those types in the world. And there are the types that are more like me that are fair and honest about what they do. I think Blender is brillant but it's like when I first opened up ZBrush back when it was like at version 2, before the huge UI overhaul... I'd see all these fantastical images made with it and really want to know how to use it. I got a pirated copy I think and messed around with it for a few days and deleted it. Then when DAZ had their brief team up with Pixo and we all got ZBrush for like $300.00 or something like that I caved and bought it. Now for the past few years I've gotten really good at using it. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I'm good at using it. I want to get good at using Blender. But issues like in my post above are show stoppers for me!
As you may know already but for the benefit of those who might not it somtimes takes a path of thinking you might not be used to.
Also the Blender undo is at times a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped up in an confusing thing that does not make sense.
Here's two ways how I might attempt this:
Select all the objects in object mode
CTRL+JKEY (which is "Blendesprach" for Ctrl+j)
to join them.
If they all have unique material zone names you can separate them
in edit mode
select the material zone
PKEY
to separate them.
alternately you could assign them to a NULL object.
Thanks guys. OK so if I do this operation and then want to separate them again do the original names get reassigned again or is it like ZBrush, it will give you back your polygroups but they are now renamed to like numeric strings?
Yes, they do get renamed, they take on the name of the 'selected object' and add a numeric tail, i.e. object, object 001, object002. It can also mess up the origin points for the various components requiring them to be reset for each if they had their own origin points. Also, to join we need to be in object mode and to unjoin, in edit mode.
Basically, the join function in Blender, while useful in some scenarios is fraught with landmines. That is the reason I generally recommend parenting instead. Because when parenting, we need to grab the parent object to move all of the child objects, many people will usually parent to a null, which is a good idea.
Forgot to mention, to unparent, select the objects in question and use the shortcut 'alt+p' in object mode (vs p to parent, also in object mode.) Much simpler if it works for your particular scenario. And as always, there is a menu option if one prefers, under the 'Object' menu at the bottom of the 3D Viewport.
OK. tried the Ctrl J and that didn't do anything. So here is what I did using the menus.
In Object mode I chose Select - Select All By Type - Mesh
Then I chose Object - Join and that did the trick. Under the layers panel (as I call it) I see now my top is one object and if I click to expand there are all my material zones still in tact and still named what they were orginally. So I assume when want to separate that back out again the names will remain in tact?
OK. SO I should learn how to make a null and then just assign all of that to the Null rather than the above operation I just did.
One thing that rarely gets mentioned in the whole 'shortcut key vs menus' debate is that when using menus we have to remember 'where the heck is that command, what menu?' Blender gave us the shortcut spacebar for searching, but then we need to remember what the command is called, (or at least close enough.) These are all helpful of course, but for me I've found that remembering the fundamental shortcut keys is at least as easy on the memory/learning curve and has the advantage of being much faster in the end. Basically, there's no free lunch.
If the names showed when you expanded the tree in outliner, then yes the names should stick when unjoining. This is somewhat hit or miss depending on a given scenario though so double check when you join. The best thing is to try unjoining right away to see, then undoing that operation. Remember to go into edit mode when unjoining.
I would also recommend playing around with joining vs parenting and if you have time watch a few tutorials, read the wiki, etc.. to get a good understanding of the differences so that you can use the one best suited to your needs for a given scenario and understand the benefits/pitfalls of each.
But you mentioned that the vert order or points so then it's not going to be recognized as the same obj (say I'm doing morphs for Dusk and this happens, then I'm back to square one, right?) So really the Null option is best??
MDO2010 looks good.
By the way, is there any talk of a bridge between DS and Blender? Would be a great thing to have that!
I don't remember if joining messes with vert orders. Parenting doesn't.
that would be Dyn-o-Mite! but I know of none.
and there is no "null" named null in Blender, I pulled a DS and forgot what it was called so I started typing on the spacebar thing-o-matic and slowly it came back to me...
sneer ? to heck with any one that trys to look down at you ever for any reason.
if the king wants to see some one bow ,tell the king to bow to the oppressed.
.
Yes, pretty much every other package calls it a null though so, habit. Makes it hard for people trying to follow directions though so I'm glad you pointed that out. The word 'Empty' for most people makes more sense (few people use the word null outside of a mathematical context) which is why I think Blender went with it.
It's those crazy Flemish developers! What's next? Those nutty metric measurements that nobody (read: ''MERICANS!) understands?
Actualy I wounder why decameters arn't used much.
So is there a tutorial on how to make an empty and then add what you want to it?
Also a new friend on Facebook just asked.... how does one "see the Scene camera" or is that always hidden and is not edittable? How does one see through the camera I see in the layers dialog unless both are one and the same?
OK.. messing around..
I created an Empty from the Create side panel, so that appears in the layers panel. Then I selected the Empty and then rename it to TrainingTop. Then in the pop up menu on the task bar I choose "Select All By Type" > Mesh and that selected all the parts of the top. Then Object> Parent> Object (Keep transform) and now I have a grouped object.
Wish there was a right click menu in the layers tab that had Add Empty as well as Selection options right there. Would save on clicks!
here's the camera in the scene (see pic)
to SEE the camera (if it's not on the screen) click camera in the scene tab (red highlight)
click back on the screen portion of the screen
click .KEY (the dot) on the num pad
to see THROUGH the camera
press 0KEY on the num pad
to move the camera
Click and drag
or
Select Lock Camera to View (yellow highlight) in the Properties panel (NKEY to bring up Properties panel)
and you can move with mouse (and possibly keyboard, I just use mouse) - scroll wheel zooms.
The camera is automatically created in a new defualt scene but it's not uncommon to set up a new preset default scene without one. To create a camera
SHIFT+AKEY to bring up Add object contextual, then OPT+RKEY to drop or scroll down to Camera and select it.
The Camera will be created where you reticule cursor is on the scene. (the red/white circle thingy) and if you snap that all over the place SHIFT+CKEY to center it, then create camera, or create camera, move reticule cursor and snap object to cursor - getting ahead of myself!
The frustration I, and some others, have is probably sour grapes.
It's like watching people tool around on jetpacks and going 'oh man, that looks awesome' and then being told 'yes, well, after you burn off a few toes, you really get the hang of it, particularly with several hundred hours of flight training' and you just sort of mope around and get a scooter.
Thank you so much StratDragon!
I notice that pan and rotate don't work while looking through the camera. How does one change the camera angle to say be right in front of the training top? I played around with a few of the controls but am not getting to where I want to be. The camera seems stuck off to the right screen side looking at the top from that angle.