![]() Funny thing is, this actually gives me more time to play with it and discover nuances I never explored back in my "pro" days. I no longer use fZ professionally, at least not on a daily basis. The light versions have not had enough of a marketing push. fZ pro is not geared to the advanced hobbyist. ![]() I think there are reasons this is the case. ![]() I am trying to school myself in the basics of more complex 3D modelling irrespective of software, but find it a bit tricky when FZ does some things differently to what seem to standard industry methods.Īgreed, there could be more in the way of tutorials for the contemporary version. I too have managed to create some wonderful sculptural shapes using NURBS and Sub - D but it's a different story when you have to create something that has to conform to strict dimensions and appearance. It's just a pity that it's strength as a 3D modeller could not be made a little clearer through a few tutorials that show different approaches to creating more complex actual real world objects, large or small, not just fanciful or random models - I'm sure these would be more useful to professionals considering which 3D software they should buy. Most of the videos are over 7 years old and I'd have thought it would have been useful to do this due to FZ's small user base and lack of other online tutorials. I too have used it exclusively for over 20 years and have made a fairly successful living out of it. I also appreciate that FormZ has a small but strong and loyal following and I don't wish to offend anyone with what is probably my ignorance. I may be wrong but there also seems a bit more consistency between a lot of the other 3D packages so it's easier to relate what's being done in one program to another, FZ just seems to do things a little different. tutorials and it is little wonder FZ has been on the sidelines for all these years. Contrast that to the wealth of C4D, 3DS, Blender etc. I just don't understand the fact that ADS don't have a single video on them taking a real world complex object and showing it being reproduced as it would be in a studio - using underlays, correct sizing, ideas of how to approach certain aspects of the model etc. I can see the tools in action but I find it difficult to choose an approach and then apply them efficiently to an actual project. Personally, I think FormZ's biggest short coming has always been the lack of decent practical tutorials to showcase its modelling power. I think it will take a little time for me to start to get grips with more advanced modelling techniques but it's something I'm determined to do whether it be with FZ or another program. the more extreme on both, the "flatter" you can make the object for accurate tracing of its profile. I 200% agree with Des regarding taking photos of your objects. Once the shape is perfected, copy-rotate and stitch back together. Split it immediately, then work on the divots. In fZ, I would create a rough bottle using the revolve tool that can be divided into 8 or 16ths. I don't think Modo would add enough advantage to the modeling of it to warrant a purchase. The coke bottle is kind of an in-between object. But in My opinion, it is a lot of unnecessary effort to do so. There are a lot of people who do Hard Shape object modeling in Modo and other similar SDS applications. (Its surface mapping and rendering are phenomenal.) On the other hand, Modo can't touch formZ anywhere else regarding Geometry. Where Modo really excels, in my opinion, is purely Organic modeling. Something formZ has lost or changed in a way I no longer understand. This is the main feature that I think would allow me to change my approach for the coke bottle.Ĥ. It isn't perfect, but I love this ability. On any specific object, if you select a segment, skip a segment select another, it can infer from this that you want to keep this selection pattern. It is easy to get your mesh overly complicated when you can't see the controls as easy.ģ. (All fZ would need to do to match this is to allow it's sub-D tools work with poly models.) I find it often easier to work out details in poly mode than in sub-D. ![]() The ability to flip back and forth between Sub-D and Poly by a keystroke is great.Ģ. The ability to use all of its tools in both Sub-D and Poly. There are some things I think that make Modo easier for this kind of work.ġ. But Modo is a Polygon modeler that just hides the polygons beyond the smoothed cage. You can always pull the control cage from Modo and use it in formZ if needed. Main benefit to formZ's sub-D's is they can be converted to NURBS. It has added other features over the years, but they seem tacked on. Modo is pretty much a dedicated SDS modeler. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |