Photoreal renders in Motion and FCPX :O

Hi everybody, have you seen the screen capture of our mObject 2.0 render engine in action already? If not, be sure to do so because we think it's AWESOME!



Quixel's materials are indeed fantastic, no doubt about it. And they work incredibly well with our renderer:


Hope you're as excited as we are, this bad boy will rock your world!

Cheers!

Hi YARO ! I hope the new version of Mobject will eventually be a more flexible tool with a runtime to be able to deploy jobs. When I developed the quadcopter and its improved version, the golden one (you can find the templates on this site) I started with your program but then I preferred to build it with Motion itself for problems related to the difficulty of creating different rotation centers for the Four propellers. The rendering looks very good I'm waiting for the rest.
With friendship Pielle.

Hi Pielle! Of course, the entire workflow has been rebuilt from the ground up so it will be a LOT more intuitive than before .
That being said, you should be able to do this in the first version too - you can either set up the Anchor Point's position manually or (assuming that your propellers were perfectly round) right-click on the AP's label and pick "Center" from the context menu which would do that automatically for you

Nonetheless, we're working hard on version 2.0 which will be a huge step from anything we've seen so far. I can't even describe how incredibly fun it is!

But first things first... mFlare 2.0 is almost done

mObject imports 3D files, Motion uses 3D text gliyphs, two different animals. A quadcopter using mObject would start in a 3D app like Modo or Blender or such, and then come into FCPX as a 3D file. You'd never assemble parts of a 3D object with mObject, you bring in a finished product. Two very different workflows/processes.

Well, not exactly. mObject had the option to use both text glyphs and SVG vector files for stylized 3D extrusion long before Motion and FCPX so of course you can use it this way too. But you're right, its true potential is revealed when you import a more complex, textured 3D mesh. mO2.0 will be a bit different in that regard too as you'll be able to do much more without having actual models.. although it will also allow you to use a wider range assets available on the net so you'll have much more to choose from

Ben! Do you really think I don’t know the difference between the use of Mobject with .obj 3D models and the Motion 3D text environment? I just said I tried to build the model of quadcopter with Mobject but I abandoned the program for animation issues related to the four different propellers rotation centers. Mobject even if it imports 3D .obj models does not have 3D animation tools but use those of Motion. I should have used four Mobject environments, but at that point the project was difficult to manage. Admit that I probably can not use Mobject at best, but it was more natural for me to use the 3D text environment that allowed me to get a distributable model.
With friendship Pielle

Ah, at last I can post freely (my previous comments became available too

Pielle, did you play with mObject's Animation Layers? They are meant specifically for animating your models so you'd only need a single mObject generator for that

Thanks for the prompt reply. I will try to put your suggestions into practice. I'm excited to try the new version of Mobject. Hope it will be like you described it.
With friendship Pielle

Pielle, I did a quick test of how this would look like in mObject 1 and even though messing with the rotors' Anchor Points was a bit of a pain (you need to select sub-groups to see their AP Helpers) it runs at constant 50fps on my iMac 5K, compared to 2fps (during closeups) of Motion's 3D text solution! So it's well worth the hassle



I've attached this project as well as the necessary mObject scene so feel free to check it out