Polygons v/s Nurbs

# 1 21-07-2010 , 01:28 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007

Location: TN (USA)

Posts: 1,889

1. I model everything in polygons. I'm just so used to working with polys and there's rarely ever a need for me to use nurbs. I know that games pretty much use polys but I was told by a university that for movies, you model everything in NURBS. I didn't realize that. Is that really true?

I find working with nurbs VERY annoying for me because the surfaces are all separate. A poly cube is 1 object but a nurbs cube is 4 objects (4 detached sides). My passion is definitely toward movies and not games. Should I be modeling everything in NURBS? If so, why are movies modeled with NURBS? I havn't experimented but I assumed that NURBS takes longer to render because of the computations it has to do. Perhaps I've been wrong all this time.

2. On another subject, where or how do I find out naming conventions for using Maya? What I mean is when I name objects and materials and such in my scenes, what's the standard way of naming things?

edit: I name materials as mat_<name>. I name layers as lyr_<name>. I name objects <name>. Is there a preferred way?

Don't be satisfied with what you can do but rather strive to do the things you can't do!
Exceed Expectations!

Last edited by Perfecto; 21-07-2010 at 01:31 AM.

Quote

# 2 21-07-2010 , 04:37 AM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2009

Posts: 153

I too prefer poly always

Quote

# 3 21-07-2010 , 05:32 AM

EduSciVis-er
Join Date: Dec 2005

Location: Toronto

Posts: 3,374

Re: Polygons v/s Nurbs

Originally posted by Perfecto
I was told by a university that for movies, you model everything in NURBS. I didn't realize that. Is that really true?

Originally Posted by

I'm pretty sure that's not true. In fact I'm 99.9% sure that's not true. So keep up the poly modelling. But in fact, modelling in NURBS can be faster and more precise for certain things. I made a music stand (on my blog) in NURBS that would probably have taken a lot longer to do with polys.

Both have pros and cons as has been discussed so many times before. I would recommend trying to learn and get relatively decent at both (that's what I'd like to do) and so you can better decide which to use when.

2. As for your other question, I don't think it matters terribly much as long as you're consistent and organized. I add an M to material names (e.g. grassM) and controls get something like l_wrist_Ctl, but I don't think there's one good way to do it.

-stwert

Website - Blog - YouTube - Vimeo - Facebook - Twitter

-->How to Effectively Ask Questions on Forums<--

Quote

# 4 21-07-2010 , 12:07 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Ahh this old number.

I can honestly say having worked on a couple of films and a few tv series, that this is not true. Ive used polys and subds mainly with the odd nurb thrown in but there hasnt been a set rule in what Ive had to use. I would say most companies are poly based.

There was a time when the characters in the first shrek movie was stuff was done via nurbs patches but this was specific to Dreamworks's workflow, I remember that very cleary as we all started to learn more nurbs based organics LOL after we found found out, I guess we all assumed our next stop was a shrek movie.

But then with Subdivision surfaces stamping their authority in the industry later on, nurbs has become used less and less. Companies do still use them but not heavily like 'back in the day'. With Sds you get the best of Nurbs and also the robustness of polys and Uvs are better to understand in a layout thru the poly surface. Nurbs and their uvs can be tricky, so can stiching and clearing seams on a model.

At the end of the day if you can add some form of knowledge of nurbs to your modelling whether you use them or not, will only go in your favour if something arises when the need of a nurb may actually be easier than a poly.

The more you can learn will only stand you in goodstead in the long run, but also keep your ears to the ground with how the 'trends' in the industry are dictating what we need to know.

Edit: Organising your scene too is absolutely key to be a good modeler or what ever it is you want to do.

Sometimes riggers like to have objects named in a specific way as they script alot and this can save time down the road for them while doing their tests. I have come across modeler scenes which just have polySurface6000 or something, so by have good naming conventions and tidy scene files people will love you for it for sure.

hope some of this helps

cheers
Jay

Quote

# 5 21-07-2010 , 02:11 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007

Location: TN (USA)

Posts: 1,889

Whew...'wipes the sweat from his brow'...thanks a whole heap stwert and Jay. I bout fainted when that university told me that. It was really hard to swallow but being willing to "go with the flow" I was prepared to start doing everything in NURBS. I'm soooooooo relieved it's not like that. I'll take your advice and start learning how to do things with NURBS too in order to become a more well rounded modeler. As you said 3ddon, we prefer working with polys.

I was always wondering about naming conventions but it sounds like as long as everything is named in a way that reflects what it is, it's okay, unless a standard is issued from another department, etc.

Very helpful..tyvm

Don't be satisfied with what you can do but rather strive to do the things you can't do!
Exceed Expectations!

Quote

# 6 22-07-2010 , 01:13 AM

Lifetime Member
Join Date: Feb 2010

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,255

Perfecto,

Im a noob so I cant really comment BUT like you I find poly's more logical so to speak and easier to use. I get confused with nurbs...I guess being a Surveyor ALL of my work is based on points/traingles and line work...so nurbs really do my head in.

As for naming things...well at work we have come up with a system that everything has a layer and or a prefix, alpha or numeric. As Jay pointed out ( and yes he is spot on) the naming convention is personal BUT at least give it a good, clear description. Abbreviate if you want as long as some one else can read it if they have to.

I deal with Design files for real life roads/pipes etc etc and EVERY bloody time I get a DXF or DWG....it has a 100 layers!!! and some have exactly what Jay quoted...surface001 002 etc etc. In my world this is useless...I would call it LOT_205_DES_FSL (Lot 205, design-finished surface level)..get my drift?

So here is a quick gas pipe list when we do pickup...design is just 'GAS' water is 'WATER' etc

G20 20mm gas
G50 50mm gas
G110 110mm gas

and so on.

cheers bullet

bullet1968

"A Darkness at Sethanon", a book I aspire to model some of the charcters and scenes

Quote

# 7 22-07-2010 , 01:26 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007

Location: TN (USA)

Posts: 1,889

Thanks bullet1968, that makes alot of sense and very helpful.

Don't be satisfied with what you can do but rather strive to do the things you can't do!
Exceed Expectations!

Quote

# 8 22-07-2010 , 01:48 AM

Lifetime Member
Join Date: Feb 2010

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,255

No probs mate

cheers bullet

I was taught by a bloody good old fashion Surveyor...his main aim was this
Quote<
"Your Field book must be concise, clear and legible...if you get runover by a bus...then another Surveyor should be able to pick up your book (from your cold hands) and carry on working without the need to decipher your work...because you would be dead and we cant ask you">End quote

Funny bugger my Master eh?? but I stick with this in my computer work too.

cheers bullet

bullet1968

"A Darkness at Sethanon", a book I aspire to model some of the charcters and scenes

Last edited by bullet1968; 22-07-2010 at 01:52 AM.

Quote