Hello.

Just wondering if someone could answer a few questions for me. Max’s help files don’t really explain things - and knowing ‘why’ is the best way for me to learn/remember.

I have some questions about displacements after following this tutorial (which, again, is very much ‘do this’, instead of ‘do this, because’: http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_education/mudbox_to_max/mudbox_to_max.htm

1. I’ve noticed in MB 2010, the “Displacement Value Ranges” pop-up does not appear after creating a displacement map, so how do we get a good starting number for when creating displacements of the same objects inside of Max?

2. Could somebody please explain Max’s Use Cage/Offest options in Projection Properties? Why is Offset preferred over Cage? I’ve seen a video on The Area, where Cage was used. The creator of the above tutorial though, enters the same number in Offset, as used in the MIN/MAX Height Map section (which was MB’s ranges pop-up), but those two are the same amounts. If they were different amounts, which would the offset match? There must be a simple formula to follow. I think the ‘start low’ is a bit vague.

3. I have attached a section of a displacement map, which I created in Max, but the Ray Miss check result isn’t really making a lot of sense to me. There seems to be tiny black dots (red in Max) scattered over the map, but there’s nothing on the mesh in MB to suggest why these little areas are being missed by the rays! In fact, the large circled area is on a smooth, concave surface!

If I try to decrease/increase the MIN/MAX amounts respectively (not too sure what to do with the Offset thingy), the map ends up washed out. It’s these little dots that have raised the questions regarding the projection settings.

I just don’t want to fluke this project, then get caught out on my next one. I really would appreciate any feedback.

Many thanks.

Software:
3ds Max Design 2012 [64bit] - Awaiting SP / Hotfix
Boot Camp (2.1) Windows 7 Ultimate [64bit] - SP1

Hardware:
Apple Mac Pro (3.1):
- 2x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 (8-core)
- 6GB (2x 1GB - 2x 2GB) 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMM
- ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 - Driver: Catalyst 9.9

Max on a Mac: Life doesn’t get much better!

Matt-N 19 September 2009 06:22 AM

I have some questions about displacements after following this tutorial (which, again, is very much ‘do this’, instead of ‘do this, because’: http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_education/mudbox_to_max/mudbox_to_max.htm

The tutorial is setup that way primarily because I don’t think the texture baking dialog was ever meant to be understood by humans :)

Matt-N 19 September 2009 06:22 AM

1. I’ve noticed in MB 2010, the “Displacement Value Ranges” pop-up does not appear after creating a displacement map, so how do we get a good starting number for when creating displacements of the same objects inside of Max?

Ya, that’s a new thing in Mudbox 2010. I’ll be creating a new tutorial soon on using MB 2010 instead of MB 2009, but haven’t had the time yet. In the meantime, when you write out a file, it should be something like this…

test_g60.000000.tif

so g60 means the search radius was -30 and 30.

Afraid I can’t help you much with the second question, beyond the fact that cage has worked for me, and projection hasn’t.

Matt-N 19 September 2009 06:22 AM

If I try to decrease/increase the MIN/MAX amounts respectively (not too sure what to do with the Offset thingy), the map ends up washed out. It’s these little dots that have raised the questions regarding the projection settings.

If you change the min/max settings in max, you should change the offset to be the same number, so a min of -10 and max of 10 means offset should be set to 10. Those dots are odd though, especially if there’s no tiny detail there. Do they occur in the exact same place if you use the mudbox and max extraction?

- Neil

Hello Neil.

I knew you posted on here, so thanks for getting back. I have used your tutorial to make some nice MB/Max rocks, which worked really well, so thanks for putting the tutorials together (I’ve read most of them now).

It just fell apart slightly for me on my latest project.

That said, I followed Wayne’s MB 2010 MasterClass (in which he exports as FBX) and that worked perfectly. No baking in Max required.

As for my ‘dotty’ problem; no, it was only from the Max bake. Both the displacement and normal maps were fine from MB. Like I said though, I used FBX and it was all perfect. It was definitely my dodgy projection settings.

I actually rendered both the hi-res Level 9 and low-res Level 3 meshes in Max, and compared them using the channel A/B splitter thingy in the RAM Player - they were identical! If anything, the normal mapping gave the Level 3 more punch! Very impressive stuff.

So I’m not sure if all this Max baking malarkey is needed when working with MB 2010 sculpts!

Anyway, thanks again for your reply and your tutorials. I have your site bookmarked so will check it for updates :oD

Software:
3ds Max Design 2012 [64bit] - Awaiting SP / Hotfix
Boot Camp (2.1) Windows 7 Ultimate [64bit] - SP1

Hardware:
Apple Mac Pro (3.1):
- 2x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 (8-core)
- 6GB (2x 1GB - 2x 2GB) 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMM
- ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 - Driver: Catalyst 9.9

Max on a Mac: Life doesn’t get much better!

Just updated my tutorials, check them out here…

http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_ed...ax/mudbox_2009_to_max.htm
http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_ed...ax/mudbox_2010_to_max.htm

Matt-N 21 September 2009 03:29 PM

Hello Neil.MB 2010 MasterClass (in which he exports as FBX) and that worked perfectly. No baking in Max required.

What do you mean “export as fbx”? Exporting a model as fbx won’t create a displacement map for you, correct? Just a lowres model.

- Neil

Sorry Neil, no it doesn’t create the maps. Just a lot of steps removed.

The video showed Wayne baking a normal in MB, then bringing it into MB’s bump slot, then baking a displacement, but bringing that into the GLOSS slot, just as a type of ‘carrier’ for it.

He then exported that as an FBX, which, when imported into Max, had all the maps in the shader, and was automatically applied to the model. All he did then was move the displacement from the gloss slot to the [3D Displacement] displacement slot. All the paint layers were converted to diffuse composite layers too. They were all at 100% opacity though, and not as they were in MB.

What I meant was, there was neither baking, nor UV breaking required in Max. The displacement’s Output Offset wasn’t changed to -0.5, it was kept at 0.0. The Disp. Length was also kept at 1.0.

The only things that were changed was the Blur and Filtering for the map (the same as your tutorial), Max. Subdiv to 64k in the Render tab, and the Edge Length was then changed according to the amount of detail required (also mentioned by yourself). That’s it! Oh, and a Turbosmooth was added to the model. It even imported that as a poly too, and not a mesh - another step removed!

I’ll follow your new tutorial though, and see it the dots disappear from my Max bake. It must’ve been something I done somewhere.

Software:
3ds Max Design 2012 [64bit] - Awaiting SP / Hotfix
Boot Camp (2.1) Windows 7 Ultimate [64bit] - SP1

Hardware:
Apple Mac Pro (3.1):
- 2x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 (8-core)
- 6GB (2x 1GB - 2x 2GB) 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMM
- ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 - Driver: Catalyst 9.9

Max on a Mac: Life doesn’t get much better!

Matt-N 21 September 2009 11:34 PM

What I meant was, there was neither baking, nor UV breaking required in Max.

Matt-N 21 September 2009 11:34 PM

and a Turbosmooth was added to the model.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the moment he adds a turbosmooth, the model now has the artifacts I describe. Using the fbx format does let you avoid a few steps, such as you don’t need to convert it to editable poly, and you don’t need to apply a brand new material, etc. So feel free to use it instead of obj, but using fbx in no way changes the fact that applying turbosmooth changes the uvs of your model in a way that is incompatible with the way mudbox smooths its uvs. Sometimes the artifacts can be quite subtle, but they are there, I’ve done tests on a lot of models, and a few of them you can’t even tell there are problems unless you look really close. And others the problems are horrifyingly obvious.

Wayne is a fantastic artist and his video tutorials are a must see, but in this one case I’m afraid I have to disagree. The technique I outline works 100% of the time, but, as you note, requires a number of extra steps, so feel free if you want to use the other technique, but realize you’re rolling the dice each time you do it.

- Neil

My bubble is still well and truly floating about Neil. My render is absolutely eye-popping!

I don’t think I actually implied FBX exports some sort of magical mesh - it’s just an easier work-flow. A work-flow that gave perfect results for me.

I’m also aware of the different smoothing algorithms between the apps’ and have previously posted in the Wishlist, regarding the matter.

I think my original questions go to show how precise I am at my work. Like I said, I imported a Level 9 and a Level 3 with the maps, rendered each individually and swiped the A/B channel slider to study the differences, at countless zooms and angles - so close in fact, that I could see the bitmap edges of my MB brushes and paint layers. No artefacts to be seen anywhere.

I’m aware your tutorial is well used, as it was actually Wayne that recommended it in one of his videos, and I’ve seen a few links to it on CGSociety too, so I trust you when you say visible artefacts can appear. I just had to look elsewhere as your tutorials were out of date, and the FBX route gave perfect results. I ain’t arguing with them there facts.

At the end of the day, I’m glad both Wayne and you created the MasterClass/tutorial respectively, as I now have both work-flows at my disposal.

I’m going to treat it like I treat vacuuming my living room: If a quick and easy blitz makes my carpet look clean, I’ll do that. If there’s a stain that’s not going, I’ll address it accordingly.

Thanks again.

Software:
3ds Max Design 2012 [64bit] - Awaiting SP / Hotfix
Boot Camp (2.1) Windows 7 Ultimate [64bit] - SP1

Hardware:
Apple Mac Pro (3.1):
- 2x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 (8-core)
- 6GB (2x 1GB - 2x 2GB) 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMM
- ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 - Driver: Catalyst 9.9

Max on a Mac: Life doesn’t get much better!

Matt-N 22 September 2009 04:17 AM

I don’t think I actually implied FBX exports some sort of magical mesh - it’s just an easier work-flow. A work-flow that gave perfect results for me.

Well, to be more precise, it probably gave you good results “in this case”. Ie, depending on a lot of factors, like how many uv seams you have, where they are placed, where your detail is located, etc, you’ll see more or less artifacting. But hey, if you want to try the easier route first, and then look for artifacts, feel free. When you do get examples that have artifacts, you know the backup technique to solve those issues. Best of luck!

- Neil

Hmmmm… that is a good point Neil.

My starting mesh was simply a 40-face rectangle from Max, with the UVs flat-packed, for speed. The detail was all over it, apart from a concave part at the top that was smooth, which, ironically, was also where the original dotty problem started in the first place!

I’ll write this one down as an experience. I think I’ll use your route by default anyway (unless I’m up against it… which I usually am)! Really don’t want to be caught out on the 11th hour.

Again, thanks for your help.

Software:
3ds Max Design 2012 [64bit] - Awaiting SP / Hotfix
Boot Camp (2.1) Windows 7 Ultimate [64bit] - SP1

Hardware:
Apple Mac Pro (3.1):
- 2x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 (8-core)
- 6GB (2x 1GB - 2x 2GB) 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMM
- ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 - Driver: Catalyst 9.9

Max on a Mac: Life doesn’t get much better!

Matt-N 22 September 2009 10:39 AM

My starting mesh was simply a 40-face rectangle from Max, with the UVs flat-packed, for speed.

Ah, now I see. Yup, that is one of the few examples that won’t have uv smoothing artifacts, since it has no uv seams, the seams line up perfectly the the edges of the mesh. I’ll enhance the part of my tutorial a bit to make sure that’s clear. Thanks for the feedback.

- Neil

Sorry for my tardiness in this thread (main pc went up in smoke earlier in the week so reduced to 3 year old laptop.)

As I’m a authorised developer I decided to send an email for unequivical clarifacation on this issue as its been up a couple of times.  I have asked for the ‘definative answer’ to the whole uv smoothing question in regards to mudbox displacement in 3d max wiht mental ray.  Also Ive asked if there are differences between max versions at all and if topology or uv layout itself can play a part, so we can get a clear picture.

So whats the right answer?  Well so far the lead programmers are having to look it up, although hot money is either on:

1 - every one is right (in line with certain cavats & guidelines)
2 - no one is right
3 - no one is sure who is right.

So I’ve made sure that they understand that from a pipeline perspective a CLEAR set of unequivical guidelines are a must.

I’ll be in Vienna doing a workshop at the Pixel event so wont be back till about wednesday next week.  Hopefully by then we’ll have a 100% answer.

Wayne…

http://www.MudboxHub.com Independant Mudbox User Forum

http://www.DashDotSlash.net - personal site