The "Pipe Trick" is one of my favorite techniques. Do you have plans perhaps to make a tutorial of this car using xNurbs "square"? It would be interesting to compare the amount of time it takes and the difference in surface quality. But it is still amazing the quality you can get with even the basic version of Plasticity.
For license questions, I would ask you to contact the Plasticity team itself via email or Discord, as I can't look into the details, like when you purchased, which version etc.. contact@plasticity.xyz
Hi, congratulations on the tutorial. Kind of see the broken reflections. I am curious to know if, if I buy the course, the surfaces look clean. I am ot sure if this is an extract of the course or just a showcase of techniques not focused on the surface outcome per see. Min 5:39 still see the surface dip and edges bulge.
This tutorial was recorded waaay before the course. The course is obviously much better quality surfaces. You can check out all the details here: nikitakapustin.com/plasticity-car-modeling/ If you don't like the result of the course, you can get your money back without any problems.
Yeah that bothered me as well and actually made me decide to not get the course. No offense to you Nikita but i don't get the point of uploading this when its not represenative of the actual Course. Idk about "Trust me bro", an actual truthful representation would be helpful.
Assuming that you use good modeling techniques then I think the indie version is good enough to get a good enough result. I have not taken Nikita's course, but I would say thta if you are trying to do automotive surfacing, the extra $150 for the studio license is worth it. For me, it's not the xNurbs command as much as it's for the Square command (which is based on xNurbs). If you notice in the video, when Nikita tries to do a G2 blend he's getting those nasty abberations and having to revert back to G1 and not getting a great result. While the loft feature makes some really nice surfaces, it also makes a ton on control points in the process, so when you go to blend surfaces that were built with loft, you can get some really nasty results. The best practice here would be to try building as many primary surfaces as possible with sweeps Try to keep the swept curve and rail as simple as possible and let the curvature come in the blends (if you start modeling more and then looking at cars from all angles, you'll start to notice how flat panels really are, but the reflections in them give the illusion that they have more curvature than they do). Some primary surfaces cannot be made from sweeps and loft must be used (especially since you can kind of force a bi-rail sweep, but technically that option doesn't exist). Before blending surfaces made from loft or any swept surfaces that have been trimmed, rebuild the surfaces with an appropriate and minimal amount of UVS using explicit control (in most cases 3x3 will be good, sometimes you need 5, beyond that you may want to consider breaking up the surfaces into a couple smaller chunks). If you need to increase the number of spans you definitely should break it up. You will almost always get a better result with two single span surfaces than with one 2 span surface. The downside is that the explicit control tool using the Parasolid kernel isn't as accurate as if you were to rebuild the surfaces using the square tool. I also much prefer using the square tool for blends and it even does a really nice job with bi-rail sweeps. Most people use xNurbs to fill in non-foursided holes, and it is very good at that, but remember that the UV structure is going to be crazy and if you start blending off those surfaces, you'll get some crap results again. I like it as an alternative to loft in situations when I am lofting a curve to another curve and want to make a control curve in the middle that will effectively be controlling the "crown" of the surface. Loft will give you a nice "crown" in the middle, but flatten out at the edges, whereas you can use xNurbs to make that same surfaces, but retain more proportional crown throughout. It's an extra step, but if you Alt+T on that (or any other xNurbs surface that doesn't use the quad'sided button, you'll see that it's a really odd surface and, as I mentioned, trying to make blends off of it will suck, so I'll trim it to what I need, duplicate the edges, rebuild those curves to the correct number of control points, then use Square to make a new clean surface. tl;dr If you want to get the best possible results are exporting as a step file for a real production part and/or really care about highlight control, then spend the extra $150 for Studio. If you are making ideations and/or videogame assets that will be exported as SubD models, then you can totally get away with indie, but may still want Studio juts for the quick and easy surfacing of xNurbs.
@SchroedingerK By the sound of it, I am better off sticking with Blender for modelling cars and modifying the cars. Thoughts? My end result is to aim for 3D printing 1:24 scale cars.
@@CiaranWhelan Hmmm. I really can't say what you're better off doing. Really depends on your experience/skill level in SubD vs Nurbs modeling. I find Plasticity to be very easy to use and a great value compared to the really high end software. For 3D prints, you'll have results that are more than acceptable in Blender and in Plasticity (even if you only go for the indie license). It's really up to what work flow you want to use and if you want to stick to free software or spring for Plasticity. If you are a total noob to Nurbs download a free trial to MoI3D and then once thta's up the 30 day free trial to Plasticity. Overall, Plasticity offers more tools and, of course, the user interface is different between the two, but MoI is great for getting your feet wet in Nurbs modeling. Or you can try getting a free license in F360
Hey man, great video but I would appreciate if you could add the discount for your course for economically backward countries like seen in blender market, Udemy etc...as due to poor value your course is 7k INR which is not affordable for people like me who wants to buy and contribute for you but is unable. So if you could please...im genuinely intrested to buy the course.
Really? Don't be like that. I am a native English speaker and I don't find him difficult to understand at all. Actually, I enjoy listening to his accent. Accents are interesting.
Lol, I got bvonline's comment after James commented on it. I thought it was like Swedish or something and tried to translate it without any result... And now I read how he meant it haha
The "Pipe Trick" is one of my favorite techniques. Do you have plans perhaps to make a tutorial of this car using xNurbs "square"? It would be interesting to compare the amount of time it takes and the difference in surface quality. But it is still amazing the quality you can get with even the basic version of Plasticity.
Haven't used square yet
I have a license for version 1.2.1 o, but it is no longer active. Is the license temporary?
For license questions, I would ask you to contact the Plasticity team itself via email or Discord, as I can't look into the details, like when you purchased, which version etc..
contact@plasticity.xyz
Great tut bro.
Amazing..
Do we need ngons export and UV unwrap to make professional 3D model for the market?
Depends what "model" for which "market" you want, But generally I've never had any problems with ngons and never unwrapped anything
Hi, congratulations on the tutorial. Kind of see the broken reflections. I am curious to know if, if I buy the course, the surfaces look clean. I am ot sure if this is an extract of the course or just a showcase of techniques not focused on the surface outcome per see. Min 5:39 still see the surface dip and edges bulge.
This tutorial was recorded waaay before the course. The course is obviously much better quality surfaces. You can check out all the details here:
nikitakapustin.com/plasticity-car-modeling/
If you don't like the result of the course, you can get your money back without any problems.
Yeah that bothered me as well and actually made me decide to not get the course. No offense to you Nikita but i don't get the point of uploading this when its not represenative of the actual Course. Idk about "Trust me bro", an actual truthful representation would be helpful.
@@postmodernerkindergartner960 Again, here is the link for "truthful representation"
nikitakapustin.com/plasticity-car-modeling/
:)
I assume that the full course will not fall back to using Xnurbs since we need the studio version to achieve that.
Assuming that you use good modeling techniques then I think the indie version is good enough to get a good enough result. I have not taken Nikita's course, but I would say thta if you are trying to do automotive surfacing, the extra $150 for the studio license is worth it. For me, it's not the xNurbs command as much as it's for the Square command (which is based on xNurbs). If you notice in the video, when Nikita tries to do a G2 blend he's getting those nasty abberations and having to revert back to G1 and not getting a great result. While the loft feature makes some really nice surfaces, it also makes a ton on control points in the process, so when you go to blend surfaces that were built with loft, you can get some really nasty results. The best practice here would be to try building as many primary surfaces as possible with sweeps Try to keep the swept curve and rail as simple as possible and let the curvature come in the blends (if you start modeling more and then looking at cars from all angles, you'll start to notice how flat panels really are, but the reflections in them give the illusion that they have more curvature than they do). Some primary surfaces cannot be made from sweeps and loft must be used (especially since you can kind of force a bi-rail sweep, but technically that option doesn't exist). Before blending surfaces made from loft or any swept surfaces that have been trimmed, rebuild the surfaces with an appropriate and minimal amount of UVS using explicit control (in most cases 3x3 will be good, sometimes you need 5, beyond that you may want to consider breaking up the surfaces into a couple smaller chunks). If you need to increase the number of spans you definitely should break it up. You will almost always get a better result with two single span surfaces than with one 2 span surface.
The downside is that the explicit control tool using the Parasolid kernel isn't as accurate as if you were to rebuild the surfaces using the square tool. I also much prefer using the square tool for blends and it even does a really nice job with bi-rail sweeps. Most people use xNurbs to fill in non-foursided holes, and it is very good at that, but remember that the UV structure is going to be crazy and if you start blending off those surfaces, you'll get some crap results again. I like it as an alternative to loft in situations when I am lofting a curve to another curve and want to make a control curve in the middle that will effectively be controlling the "crown" of the surface. Loft will give you a nice "crown" in the middle, but flatten out at the edges, whereas you can use xNurbs to make that same surfaces, but retain more proportional crown throughout. It's an extra step, but if you Alt+T on that (or any other xNurbs surface that doesn't use the quad'sided button, you'll see that it's a really odd surface and, as I mentioned, trying to make blends off of it will suck, so I'll trim it to what I need, duplicate the edges, rebuild those curves to the correct number of control points, then use Square to make a new clean surface.
tl;dr
If you want to get the best possible results are exporting as a step file for a real production part and/or really care about highlight control, then spend the extra $150 for Studio. If you are making ideations and/or videogame assets that will be exported as SubD models, then you can totally get away with indie, but may still want Studio juts for the quick and easy surfacing of xNurbs.
@SchroedingerK By the sound of it, I am better off sticking with Blender for modelling cars and modifying the cars. Thoughts?
My end result is to aim for 3D printing 1:24 scale cars.
@@CiaranWhelan Hmmm. I really can't say what you're better off doing. Really depends on your experience/skill level in SubD vs Nurbs modeling. I find Plasticity to be very easy to use and a great value compared to the really high end software. For 3D prints, you'll have results that are more than acceptable in Blender and in Plasticity (even if you only go for the indie license). It's really up to what work flow you want to use and if you want to stick to free software or spring for Plasticity.
If you are a total noob to Nurbs download a free trial to MoI3D and then once thta's up the 30 day free trial to Plasticity. Overall, Plasticity offers more tools and, of course, the user interface is different between the two, but MoI is great for getting your feet wet in Nurbs modeling. Or you can try getting a free license in F360
создал переход, но он получился неидеальный. в чём смысл урока?
Hey man, great video but I would appreciate if you could add the discount for your course for economically backward countries like seen in blender market, Udemy etc...as due to poor value your course is 7k INR which is not affordable for people like me who wants to buy and contribute for you but is unable. So if you could please...im genuinely intrested to buy the course.
Write me an email to nikita@nikitakapustin.com and we will figure something out for your situation!
iph ju wont to lörn spieking inglisch bettr, go to ei outspieking tietschör!
Really? Don't be like that. I am a native English speaker and I don't find him difficult to understand at all. Actually, I enjoy listening to his accent. Accents are interesting.
Lol, I got bvonline's comment after James commented on it. I thought it was like Swedish or something and tried to translate it without any result... And now I read how he meant it haha