FA+
Shop
Why the diaper? It's physics.
11 years ago
Sometimes there are details people focus on. In my case...it's the diaper. Why? Is it perverse? Is it a babyfur thing?
No...it's quality and realism in a 3D model.
When I construct something in 3D I try to make it behave as though it were a physical thing. In any model there are certain "tells" that throw the eye of the viewer. I'm trying to create something that doesn't say..."oh, someone got a posing program and just slapped this crap together."
Diapers are particularly tricky...and the reason is geometry.
If you've ever found the "how it's made" segment on disposable diapers on YouTube, you'll see that they're manufactured flat...then folded and flattened and packed again. It's a slab that's folded and stacked. This slab gets unfolded and then wrapped about the pelvis of an anthropomorphic being (human, fur, whatever), and the geometry changes. To a computer, this is a lot of stuff to think about.
To a living viewer, it's a lot more to convince. Everyone has seen a diaper commercial or a living baby at a glance or in the off chance at the very least. We see how they move. And the diaper is just an afterthought, the most basic garb...until you try to tell a computer how to make one.
And when I get one off-the-shelf...what drives me nuts is that these companies, who pride themselves on realism...have the material riding up the butt crack. Might drive modelers nuts, say..."let's have an endearing scene of a family at the beach or in the backyard or in the home...and then there's this careless prop that all of a sudden throws the eye because it's just not realistic.
To be fair it's a tricky model to rig if you want something with full physics. You need to program something that goes from a geometric slab to a rigged pelvic prop with displacement and compression variables rigged to the model. If it were that easy, Kimberly-Clark and Proctor & Gamble wouldn't be spending billions on R&D...the geometric models they have are secret to the nth degree...(and for something that seems so trivial or taboo, it's a multibillion dollar market).
No cheap solutions here...and no easy ones without the cynics calling me a pervert. But as an artist in 3D, it's like saying..."hey, I need to fill in a detail and make it look real!"
Still working on it.
No...it's quality and realism in a 3D model.
When I construct something in 3D I try to make it behave as though it were a physical thing. In any model there are certain "tells" that throw the eye of the viewer. I'm trying to create something that doesn't say..."oh, someone got a posing program and just slapped this crap together."
Diapers are particularly tricky...and the reason is geometry.
If you've ever found the "how it's made" segment on disposable diapers on YouTube, you'll see that they're manufactured flat...then folded and flattened and packed again. It's a slab that's folded and stacked. This slab gets unfolded and then wrapped about the pelvis of an anthropomorphic being (human, fur, whatever), and the geometry changes. To a computer, this is a lot of stuff to think about.
To a living viewer, it's a lot more to convince. Everyone has seen a diaper commercial or a living baby at a glance or in the off chance at the very least. We see how they move. And the diaper is just an afterthought, the most basic garb...until you try to tell a computer how to make one.
And when I get one off-the-shelf...what drives me nuts is that these companies, who pride themselves on realism...have the material riding up the butt crack. Might drive modelers nuts, say..."let's have an endearing scene of a family at the beach or in the backyard or in the home...and then there's this careless prop that all of a sudden throws the eye because it's just not realistic.
To be fair it's a tricky model to rig if you want something with full physics. You need to program something that goes from a geometric slab to a rigged pelvic prop with displacement and compression variables rigged to the model. If it were that easy, Kimberly-Clark and Proctor & Gamble wouldn't be spending billions on R&D...the geometric models they have are secret to the nth degree...(and for something that seems so trivial or taboo, it's a multibillion dollar market).
No cheap solutions here...and no easy ones without the cynics calling me a pervert. But as an artist in 3D, it's like saying..."hey, I need to fill in a detail and make it look real!"
Still working on it.
dragoncores
~dragoncores
Ahhh
DiaperedPingas
~diaperedpingas
So...you're NOT a babyfur? Sorry if I'm a little confused.
AlexCub
~alexcub
OP
Well I am, but 3D art is pretty tricky.
DiaperedPingas
~diaperedpingas
Ah, ok then.
themnax
~themnax
as someone who appreciates the challenges of 3d, yes i do know what you're talking about. many other things more interesting to me then a diaper, but i do get the general idea. there was a tut or breakdown on clothing a break dancing figure in blender. and of course you have to go high enough poly to not have corners sticking through. i don't remember everything they had to do, but this was with the tools of about ten iterations back. i'm still working on getting all of the parts of my trains rigged and parented so they don't fly apart of curves.
saphira2
~saphira2
cool, i would like to learn hoow to do 3D animations, i just do not have a comp strong enuf to cope with the demands, it is bearly able to cope with photoshop
Zeratul-Luke
~zeratul-luke
I'm actually happy to have someone go into detail about things like this.
