[MoI]MoI

[bwtr]

Is MoI, even at this point in its Beta versions, any great distance behind--for average/normal usage-- than say Rhino, Amapi etc as a Nurbs modeller?

Will not taking MoI stuff into the say Carrara Vertex room, not satisfy most average SubD poly people also?

I just seem to feel that everyone wants to see upgrades in all directions but forget the simplicity of usage that can, or could, be attained for most of "less than average" CG people.

[wal]

Moi has one missing Point - it's just for windows ;(

But I agree with you - the interface looks fantasic clean and very userfriendly and easy to use.

But for a mac user like me ... no

best regards
wal

[jbshorty]

Hi Brian. Moi is a great modeler, especially for those people who are just learning Nurbs. And i think it will continue to grow very well alongside of it's new user base. If i were just getting into nurbs modeling, Moi would be a strong consideration... But comparing Moi to Rhino is something like comparing Carrara to Maya. There is a lot of power under Rhino's hood, and it's abilities are extending far beyond the scope of just modeling objects... Your question seems to indicate some doubt about purchasing Moi. Honestly i think Moi is a good investment if your modeling needs are not too demanding...

I can't compare Moi to Amapi, as i don't use it. Me and the Amapi UI had a disagreement about workflow. We haven't spoken since then...

shorty

[bwtr]

Amapi 7.5 seems to look a bit like Mayas UI now. Both, like Rhino just seem over complex for me.

[WillBellJr]

Having Rhino v2, I can agree that Rhino is way more powerful than MOI is at the moment, but tell me - how do you get clean exports out of Rhino into your polygon apps? (Or, do you even use Rhino creations for rendering in polygon applications?)

So for me all of Rhino's power is negated by having lousy polygon format exports...

-Will

[jbshorty]

Will, n-gon/quad meshing is not ideal for manufacturing. That's mostly suitable for animation or rendering in apps that don't fare well with heavy poly counts. The real truth is that n-gon meshing produces clean topology, but it requires a lot more poly faces than triangles to define a similar surface curvature. I plan on buying Moi to use as exporter to Modo. So no problem for me. I will have both. But when i send out for RP i will probably still use Rhino's mesher, unless Moi does a better job for all triangles. I'll have to test that. I have a bunch of new projects in work that i need to RP very soon...

shorty

PS - after some testing i prefer Rhino's mesher for models to be prototyped. but if i am exporting to Modo or Carrara of course i would use Moi to mesh my Rhino models...

[WillBellJr]

Well there you have it - I'm not doing any kind of machining, all my work is artistic / CGI...

-Will

[corzair]

Originally Posted by bwtr

Is MoI, even at this point in its Beta versions, any great distance behind--for average/normal usage-- than say Rhino, Amapi etc as a Nurbs modeller?

Will not taking MoI stuff into the say Carrara Vertex room, not satisfy most average SubD poly people also?

I just seem to feel that everyone wants to see upgrades in all directions but forget the simplicity of usage that can, or could, be attained for most of "less than average" CG people.

I think i'm in sumwhat the same boat as yourself.
I really like MoI as its really quick to try out a few ideas with
I'm very much just a dabbler with 3D trying to learn 3D via Carrara took me a long time (just me probably)

Anyway I also have Amapi 7.52 and can move files between MoI beta and Amapi via opennurbs easily

MoI has a really good UI than be used with a tablet or mouse easily

the grid snaps work better then Amapi also and the package is shaping up to be really good

if you have not already you should check out the forum of MoI and see the work people are aready doing with it

It less complex then Amapi with a clean interface well worth trying!

[Sketchy]

Originally Posted by WillBellJr

Having Rhino v2, I can agree that Rhino is way more powerful than MOI is at the moment, but tell me - how do you get clean exports out of Rhino into your polygon apps? (Or, do you even use Rhino creations for rendering in polygon applications?)

So for me all of Rhino's power is negated by having lousy polygon format exports...

Since Amapi have been discontinued, I am now thinking of buying Rhino 4 as a NURBS tool. It's the kind of app that matches my workflow and ui preferences from the beginning anyway. How I wished the next 3d subd package will have similar workflow and ui. I too have the same problem converting NURBS to Poly for rendering in subd-based apps. My solution is to use renderers that fully support Rhino such as Flamingo, Vray and others.

[jbshorty]

Hi Sketchy. Actually, exporting from Rhino is not as bad as many people claim it to be. Here is an example of a filleted box, exported from Rhino to Modo as OBJ. One thing very nice about Rhino's exporter is that UV islands are nested for you, something which Moi can not do but which I requested to Michael recently. He said that nesting is complicated and will take "a while". I am sure he will add that feature at some time. Once the Rhino OBJ is brought into Modo, each of the 26 mesh "parts" will be detached from each other but still considered to be one mesh. All you have to do now is use Modo's "Align" tool in the Vertex menu, set with distance of 0 units. And now the mesh becomes unified and the UV islands remain intact. A nice feature of Modo is that it does not destroy UV data when editing the mesh . So this is a very easy way to get a pre-mapped model into an external render engine. You can do the same workflow when importing a mesh from Moi if it has unwelded mesh edges. But then you must select each UV island and arrange them by hand. Depending on how many islands you have this can take a long time. I've modeled an object in Rhino which had 900 surfaces. I can't imagine spending a few extra days to sort this all manually... There are times when Rhino and Moi both will have their advantages over each other.

shorty

PS - Yes know this is an example of an unnecessarily high-poly mesh. I didn't pay much attention when i created it...

[WillBellJr]

Yes guys these renderers are fine BUT what if you want to animate??

Granted, most NURBS objects are going to be props and background elements (not characters) but I find that the triangles give me rendering artifacts in 70% or more of my imports. The time it takes to rework the surfaces negates the speed that NURBS modeling affords you.

You end up being better off just developing the model native to your rendering app. Granted something like TopoGun may help but that's still a block of rework time as well...

-Will

[jbshorty]

Originally Posted by WillBellJr

...Yes guys these renderers are fine BUT what if you want to animate??...

Yes, i could see where that's a problem if you need to deform an object during animation. But for what i do, i never really have too many problems. I don't any intentions to animate my Nurbs models, except maybe i will try simple assembly explosions and such when Modo 301 hits...

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by WillBellJr

I find that the triangles give me rendering artifacts in 70% or more of my imports. The time it takes to rework the surfaces negates the speed that NURBS modeling affords you.

I have not had any problems with my Nurbs work. Are you speaking of MOI or Rhino? For MOI I usually set my angle at 6 or 7 deg and have not had a problem.

[Wася]

Same problems with MoI here. Even without animation. Three simple shapes - cone, shpere, cylinder, and two boolean operations on them. Clear artefacts after obj export-import.

[WillBellJr]

Originally Posted by Grendel

I have not had any problems with my Nurbs work. Are you speaking of MOI or Rhino? For MOI I usually set my angle at 6 or 7 deg and have not had a problem.

Hi Grendel, I'm mostly talking about Rhino here since MOI exports quads.

I purchased Cinema 4D XL+ specifically because MOI imports look exactly the same as they do in MOI; clean and smooth!

I own Rhino v2 but was never really able to use it for the triangle artifacts upon rendering and not wanting to rework the topologies...

-Will