Currently I NEED modellers.
I need them to make the complexities I cannot .......YET.
Because I need to get some simple demos out for some people to see according to what theyre after. They pay money. Spendable stuff.

What kind of product modelling are you looking at ? Google warehouse is not good enough ? If you want to customise a model, I am afraid, ICLONE may not be right one at all. ICLONE, I believe, is a great tool for animation within its limit. Sketch up itself is a great and easy modelling tool. Try Hexagon from DAZ for your customised modelling work. It's surprisingly easy to learn and work with.


I am surprised you had to argue in favour of ICLONE with your client. When you start talking about a Programme, people would compare that with another and the discussion may get into an endless loop. The client is usually bothered about the quality of the Output. If the quality of output is good enough, the client should not be bothered about the software at all.

Or, am I missing something ?

But I cant sit here for fifteen hours watching all the video output. Hence stills.

The other day I was embedding a graphic on my avatar's face. Basically, i was converting a plain Toon shaded actor to a circus joker. The graphic was to cover only eyes and around lips, typical joker look. Rest of the face transparent showing toon shaded face colour.

Barely 5-10 minutes with regular U-V alignment.

If you have an utility to unwrap, it's fine. Else, just think of the cube as a chessboard. On one side you will have 2 consecutive squares (top), 1 on your right and left and 1 below. There you got to have your picture.

Lets see some stills of the things you've made?

Hi again....

Well, while I await the next 40 minute render for 4 minutes....  I thought Id say something from MY perspective.

Currently I NEED modellers.
I need them to make the complexities I cannot .......YET.
Because I need to get some simple demos out for some people to see according to what theyre after. They pay money. Spendable stuff.

Having to learn new software at this time is not something I have time for. Money has to be made, bread has to be bought. :)

Back in 1994 I used IMAGINE (Good old days... ToyStory and etc...) Imagine came on a  floppy disk and was 1.2 megs compressed with DOS PKZip.
We made Robots walk and spaceships with planets on using a DX4 66Mhz and 8 megs of ram which then came in at about £1100:00 - $2000:00 just for the ram.

I don't know what the best software would be now. I don't like the cost or complexity of 3DSMax nor know how much I could roll off as a business expense.  All I know IS that there are some stunning modellers out there, but this day and age you have to be BOTH.

I recall a telephone conversation with an agency in France this year where the guy was defiant as hell that one was not the other. I asked him if he'd ever heard of iClone or knew of its efficiency regarding output and regarding its ability to simplify making props internally. 

He said it was either one or the other. Partially he is right but I argued that Iclone had the capacity to create props to a detailed degree that would save the budget incredibly re: Client prop / theme demand and that aside from clunky MoCap its evolution was such that it was time Companies realised that their animated commercials could better be realised within ever more tightening budgets because the cost effectivity of IClone meant that quality output was within financial reach now, leastways in the US medical markets and Europe's industrials. Where I am.

I would say I have a couple of years down the line full time in some modelling software. But it would be time well spent because I know what I want. Fiddly bits that are always missing when ever I turn in IClone. Always some stupid thing not there that you would have assumed was from the beginning.

That would be my focus. Modelling to get the set right for the client. NOT for sending it to a shop online. If THIS is what you mean about what people are doing in the animation World....... I agree.

I have always admired the "in house" output of companies that write their own software let alone model their own props and characters.

Hi, No, UV's are not the enemy.

I'll admit when I read Sw0000ps posts Im quite fascinated to see the degree of technicalities on the other side of the fence. Assembling all his (and other modellers) output takes half my life as it is. But my issue is that the UV output from iClone is very good, just that you need some other software to reshape the UV's it creates/defines.

Its good to have a basic understanding. Each watching the other. Else how to know what to make; how to know what CAN be made?

As animators we can only do what we see works; can only do what we see makes an improvement when we look for it.

As modellers you see our mistakes in modelling, but this is because there's a failing in the quality of what we require AT THAT TIME.

As animators we see your mistakes in modelling but ONLY because of the diversity of NEED regarding a global variation of each production.

They'll never work together.

1. Modellers see a basic structure of what COULD be required by the Animator.

2. Animators have to improvise and restructure what HAS been made and progress accordingly.

1.b. Modellers WATCH this deployment strategy of whats been made and re-design accordingly.

Mapping a texture to a box has technical laws not fully understood by the animator but which, by experimentation, DOES display improvement through resolution toying even if not wholly accurate.

ISSUE: How long would it take a modeller to create a TV Remote control even with a flashing button on it (even I can do that) and then stick it up on the market for a few points, give a link to it to the struggling animator?
Barely any time at all.  For the Modeller this is an embarrassingly easy task of no complexity done with his eyes shut. 

For the animator???

I was away for a few weeks and just read the tail of this thread. I'm a bit puzzled by Armstrong's UV statements. Every 3D program, including iClone, needs a facility to map a texture to a mesh. That's where UV-mapping comes into play.

iClone does give you some capabilities to make changes (different projections, tiling settings, offsets, etc.), which can be quite useful. It doesn't change the underlying UV map, but there is still a lot you can do.

UVs are NOT the enemy...

---

I think I'm done playing "Texture and UV Map Man" for a while.

For now, I've learned what I want to know.

The next step is to somehow motivate my "Blender Head" son to make similar progress on UV Unwrapping in Blender, and then use 3DXchange to reliably get the desired end-result in iClone.  But that's the eternal question, isn't it; How to motivate a teenager?

I made the "bottles with graphics" in iClone.

My son made the "bumpy" bottle in Blender, but initially had a really poor bump map (good enough to prove the process, but the artwork was lacking.  I've slowly been improving my GIMP skills and improved the "geometry" of the bump map.  But my purpose for learning GIMP is to make it less painful to do the iClone work that is my real goal.

---

iClone 7... Character Creator... Substance Designer/Painter... Blender... Audacity...
Desktop (homebuilt) - Windows 10, Ryzen 9 3900x CPU, GTX 1080 GPU (8GB), 32GB RAM, Asus X570 Pro motherboard, 2TB SSD, terabytes of disk space, dual  monitors.
Laptop - Windows 10, MSI GS63VR STEALTH-252, 16GB RAM, GTX 1060 (6GB), 256GB SSD and 1TB HDD

He's assessed the thread and made an accurate precis by the look. :P The discussion seems to have strayed into the "How we model" rather than the "How we texture six sides of a cube instead of all at once." :)