carrara 6 DirectX-based?

Joined: 22 Dec 2006 Posts: 59

Hi,
I am looking at a monitor that displays stereo 3D:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2048874,00.asp
The company says a 3D application needs to be DirectX-based in order for the monitor to work.
Is Carrara 6 DirectX-based?
Have you heard anything about this monitor?
Thanks.

Joined: 02 Jan 2007 Posts: 314

As far as I know, Carrara is OpenGL based, like most other 3d apps primarily because OpenGL is not a Microsoft-specific hardware interface and it works the sames whether you are using Windows, Mac or Linux. I also use Blender and Lightwave, which are OpenGl based as well. I really don't know which apps use Direct X.

Joined: 02 Dec 2003 Posts: 278

Truespace uses a directx viewport.

Not sure of any others.

I would think that monitor is of more use to games though.

Cheers

Mike R

Joined: 02 Jan 2007 Posts: 314

Personally, I won't purchase a monitor that requires the 3d app to be based on a specific format. I've never heard of such a thing, anyway. I bought 2 new flat panels recently, and they aren't dependent on either. They just display whats being sent from the graphics card. No monitor itself should be dependent on OpenGL or DirectX. That's the graphics adapter's job.

My recommendation: Don't buy it. I don't see any reason to be able to have stereo vision capabilities on the monitor, anyway.

If you absolutely need it for commercial purposes, there are 3d apps that will let you choose between directx and opengl, but they usually run slower because most are opengl based to start with.

Joined: 25 Mar 2005 Posts: 43

Arkaos wrote:

Personally, I won't purchase a monitor that requires the 3d app to be based on a specific format. I've never heard of such a thing, anyway.

Any stereo vision system requires cooperation from the display device (monitor, glasses, whatever) and the video card.

Usually, this cooperation is done directly in the video card's drivers, but in this case, since the display can be used with any card, it's necessary for the program that creates the stereo separation to be slightly higher-level.

It makes total sense that the stereo drivers only support Direct X: you have to intercept every single Direct 3D call and duplicate every object that's sent to the video card, while modifying the vertex coordinates of the objects going to one of the display buffers.

That's a lot of work, and since the D3D API's are fairly well integrated with Windows, it's possible to do easily. Doing it with GL is harder, since Microsoft not only doesn't play well with OpenGL, but there are some significant problems with the way OpenGL is implemented.

Joined: 22 Dec 2006 Posts: 59

Whoa, thanks tomxp411. You just made clear what I've been missing in this search of mine that has highlighted the OpenGL/DirectX API issue of software and hardware. I'm just beginning to learn this stuff.
By the way, here is a reply from the developer of a program called 3D-Brush, now in v2.0. It is a ZBrush-like sculpting application. I am not clear from his reply if he means whether the viewport has real-time DirectX rendering AS I MODEL, or whether he means the final rendered image. I am looking for AS I MODEL.
Do you get what he means? See below:
"3D-Brush uses DirectX9 to render picture, so it it is what you need."

Thanks.

Joined: 25 Mar 2005 Posts: 43

Direct X is for real time rendering, so it would be "as you model." If he's using D3D at all, it wouldn't make sense to use a different technology for the modeling process and then only render the final image in D3D.

The term "render" is really pretty generic. Technically speaking, any time you display a graphic on the screen, you're rendering it. 3D artists tend to think of "rendering" as the final render done with a ray-tracer, but what this guy's referring to is probably the real-time interface as you work in the modeling window.

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to use a 3D monitor for model design? I can understand if you want to use it for gaming or for VR stuff, but using it only during the modeling phase seems kind like a waste of money. Your final renders won't be stereoscopic, so they won't look any different than on a regular monitor. (Well, technically that's not true.. you COULD render the image twice, from 2 slightly different viewpoints. Some programs have built-in support for stereo rendering, creating 2 images.)

Joined: 22 Dec 2006 Posts: 59

I want the stereo effect because, well, it's amazing. I have always been interested in stereoscopy. I saw a side-by side stereo pair captured in Blender and used the parallel line-of-sight method to view this and was instantly hooked. To be able to model in perceived real depth would be not only breathtaking, but would also aid in the modeling process.
Apparently this monitor is awesome for gaming, by the way (its main target market).
Here's that Blender shot, by the way. I had to reduce Page>Zoom>50% so that I could merge the two images to a third in the center, which is the stereo result. I would model this way without having to buy an expensive toy like the IZ3D LCD monitor if I could use my eyes only with that method of viewing, but it is a strain to do it for any length of time. As you say, many 3D content creation applications have that ability to render two windows side-by-side, representing the slightly shifted view from cameras virtually approximately 7 centimeters apart.

Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 331

tomxp411 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to use a 3D monitor for model design? I can understand if you want to use it for gaming or for VR stuff, but using it only during the modeling phase seems kind like a waste of money. Your final renders won't be stereoscopic, so they won't look any different than on a regular monitor. (Well, technically that's not true.. you COULD render the image twice, from 2 slightly different viewpoints. Some programs have built-in support for stereo rendering, creating 2 images.)

Your final renders certainly could be made in a stereoscopic manner. Many programs support this directly, and others can usually be mad eto do it. For interactive sculpting like Carrara has, I think it would be a great way to work, if it didn't give me a headache. If you're trying to simulate 3D, why stop halfway?

Joined: 22 Dec 2006 Posts: 59

As it turns out, I have found a program that most likely will display 3D stereo in the viewport as I model using the IZ3D LCD stereo monitor. I had hoped for Carrara6Pro and ZBrush, before I found out about the monitor requiring DirectX display of modeling render. Neither do... so, dang.
However, I've discovered a ZBrush-like software developed in Russia (I think) called 3D-Brush.

www.3d-Brush.com

There's a demo if anyone would like to try it. I will be soon. It happily does display modeling in DirectX, so the guys at IZ3D are going to test it out on the stereo monitor I'm all excited about.

If I can get an old copy of MAX for scenes and final render, I would also be able to arrange my models from 3D-Brush in MAX seeing it in stereo 3D because DirectX is used for MAX's viewports. Softimage maybe and truespace definitely. Maybe Lightwave 5.5 (maybe only 5.5, but could be all releases after 5.5). Curvy3D is a small program that uses DirectX.

Thanks for continuing input about this subject. Jees, I still wish Carrara had the DirectX views. I may use it anyway.

I'll be back here when I hear the verdict about 3D-Brush. BTW, $70 until Oct31. $100-200 after that. It's new.

Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 331

shokan wrote:

As it turns out, I have found a program that most likely will display 3D stereo in the viewport as I model using the IZ3D LCD stereo monitor. I had hoped for Carrara6Pro and ZBrush, before I found out about the monitor requiring DirectX display of modeling render. Neither do... so, dang.
However, I've discovered a ZBrush-like software developed in Russia (I think) called 3D-Brush.

www.3d-Brush.com

There's a demo if anyone would like to try it. I will be soon. It happily does display modeling in DirectX, so the guys at IZ3D are going to test it out on the stereo monitor I'm all excited about.

If I can get an old copy of MAX for scenes and final render, I would also be able to arrange my models from 3D-Brush in MAX seeing it in stereo 3D because DirectX is used for MAX's viewports. Softimage maybe and truespace definitely. Maybe Lightwave 5.5 (maybe only 5.5, but could be all releases after 5.5). Curvy3D is a small program that uses DirectX.

Thanks for continuing input about this subject. Jees, I still wish Carrara had the DirectX views. I may use it anyway.

I'll be back here when I hear the verdict about 3D-Brush. BTW, $70 until Oct31. $100-200 after that. It's new.

Is Curvy still in development? A Curvy Pro was announced, but I never saw anything on it, and forum activity all but stopped. Check out the newest version of Truespace if DX rendering is a must. It's got one of the best DX9 graphics engines available. I'm hoping to see GLSL implemented in Carrara myself someday.

Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 1340

There is a real time DX render image displayed on the trueSpace forums today if anyone wants to look at a real time render. It was created by user Parva. http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/showthread.php?p=49966#post49966

Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 331

JamesMc wrote:

There is a real time DX render image displayed on the trueSpace forums today if anyone wants to look at a real time render. It was created by user Parva. http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/showthread.php?p=49966#post49966

This is why I want to see full GLSL support in Carrara someday, it would look very similar to that. It's worth keeping in mind that the problems Carrara has with poser materials is even worse in Truespace. It has native, DX9 and V-Ray, with, I believe, all of them handling materials differently. But with realtime rendering like that, who needs the other two? (yes, I know you're out there!)

Joined: 12 Sep 2007 Posts: 117

moogaloonie

Can you tell me what is the difference between curvy and 3d Brush (if you know) please and what is better?

Thanks

Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 331

mo-fahmi wrote:

moogaloonie

Can you tell me what is the difference between curvy and 3d Brush (if you know) please and what is better?

Thanks

I followed Curvy for a bit, but it seemed ot disappear. As beast as I could tell, Curvy let you mold simple forms with curves, then paint the shapes with normal maps. It seemed to be a quick way to knock out a background or simple object. It did not seem that you had much control over UV layouts, as I think the starting form is pre mapped and painting just occours in that UV space. I didn't notice any more advanced tools like merging shapes into compound forms, and I didn't think the output would be suitable for most tasks I was evaluating it for.

3D brush is a much more standard tool. You load in a premade UV mapped object and it lets you paint, in many channels simultaneously. You may create a brush that contains colour, normal, specular info and paint with it or other tools. Curvy looked to me like something to play with, 3D brush looks like the kind of thing that would have had everyone excited just a few short years ago.

Joined: 29 Nov 2003 Posts: 2906 Location: South Australia

3D Brush is the everyones version of Z-Brush. It may have a few "quirks" still but I don't think any 3D Paint/Displacement app comes close to it for use by the average (amateur?) 3D person.

Joined: 12 Sep 2007 Posts: 117

moogaloonie

Thank you very much for this detailed explanation which I was really need.

btwr

Thank you for your recommendation.

I downloaded the demo yesterday and installed it, when I tried to start it, it just did not start and I just heard a tune of failed operation from the speakers, the application did not start or give any error message, so what do you thik the problem is?

My computer has Athlon xp 3000+
Radeon 9600 128mb
1.5 GB Ram
Windows XP
Open GL 2.0.6847
Direct X 9

so is there something wronge?

and another question please...... let us say that I could run it.... is there any tutorials for it? and where?

Your help is really appreciated.

Joined: 12 Sep 2007 Posts: 117

Dear moogaloonie and bwtr

Does carrara supports normal maps?

I am trying to buy 3d Brush but I need to know can I use the normal maps (plus the low poly mesh exported) that comes from this app...... I received from 3d brush team this {{{You also need to export normalmap texture. Usually all 3D-editors support rendering with normalmaps. The mesh will remain low-poly but will look like high-poly because of normalmap.}}}?

So deos carrara 6 pro supports rendering with normalmaps?

Or please tell me how you get benefit of the result that you get from 3d brush?

please advise me because I do not know>>>>>> Crying or Very sad

Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 331

mo-fahmi wrote:

Dear moogaloonie and bwtr

Does carrara supports normal maps?

I am trying to buy 3d Brush but I need to know can I use the normal maps (plus the low poly mesh exported) that comes from this app...... I received from 3d brush team this {{{You also need to export normalmap texture. Usually all 3D-editors support rendering with normalmaps. The mesh will remain low-poly but will look like high-poly because of normalmap.}}}?

So deos carrara 6 pro supports rendering with normalmaps?

Or please tell me how you get benefit of the result that you get from 3d brush?

please advise me because I do not know>>>>>> Crying or Very sad

Cheer up, all you need is a $15 plug-in called "Deeper", available here:

http://www.inagoni.com/news.php

I've been quite surprised at both the number and quality of Carrara's plug-ins.

I plan on getting this when I finally find the time to start working with zBrush. A word of caution though, Carrara wasn't designed to work with 20-million-poly meshes. You are on the right track to use the normal map to achieve in Carrara the look of the detailed object. I've read a few posts of people complaining that they can't get as high of a polygon count/subdivision level in Carrara as in zBrush. They are foolish to expect to. ZBrush can create subdivided models with insane polygon counts, but it was at one point assumed that most people would convert mesh detail to normal maps and generally work with similar polygon counts as before using zBrush. For some reason a lot of people seem to think all of their programs should now handle these large meshes as zBrush does. ZBrush may not be unique in this area, but IMHO it's not reasonable to expect Carrara to handle these models at full subdivision. Reducing them down and applying normal maps should provide acceptable results, and it will let you use your models in real-time engines also, if you are interested in that.

Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 331

I thought I'd mentioned this before, but there is a beta program called "crazybump" that creates normal and bump maps from textures. You may want to take a look at that also.

http://www.crazybump.com/

I'm really interested in seeing your normal mapped models rendered in Carrara. I plan on using Hex and zBrush to create some models that I may want to use in a game or "machinema" movie. Since I will eventually want to render these models in real-time, using moderate poly counts with normal maps seems to be the way to go. I will obviously have to buy the plug-in to render them in Carrara, but it seems better than having two sets of models (realtime/rendered).