Comments for TurboSquid Blog

Comment on CheckMate Pro v2: Submissions and Topology Requirements by Michele Bousquet

Michele Bousquet — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:44:09 +0000

Having said all that, we are open to suggestions on how to improve the specification. We know there will be exceptions, but we’re not sure what they are yet; as you bring up your concerns (as with the question about architecture models) we will look at them and respond, either with specification changes, or information on why a spec change is not necessary.

The Lightwave question is a great example of this also. We don’t have a lot of native Lightwave files in CheckMate and the specification change seemed to work with those, but if you have an idea on how to make it better, please let us know.

Comment on CheckMate Pro v2: Submissions and Topology Requirements by Michele Bousquet

Michele Bousquet — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:39:36 +0000

I will try to clarify a few points here.

Our CheckMate Advisory Board, and our customers, want models that are made in one of two ways:
- Group 1: Perfect edge flow, suitable for most customer needs such as editing, re-texturing, rigging, subdivision. OR
- Group 2: Minimal polygons, to be used for background, realtime, or game uses.

All CheckMate Pro models must now be made to fit into one of these groups. Most of the models currently in CheckMate Pro fit in Group 1, or could fit in this group with some work. In reviewing the architecture models on TurboSquid, I found that most fit in Group 2, which is fine for CheckMate Pro.

In any case, customers expect that a model with perfect edge flow will have more polygons than a realtime model or a model with a lot of odd triangles. As processors get faster and computers have more memory than ever before, polygon count is much less of an issue than it has been in the past. Customers are much more interested in saving their own time, ie. being able to edit or re-texture a model quickly. Clean edge flow makes this possible.

Comment on CheckMate Pro v2 Coming Soon by POPA_3D

POPA_3D — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:09:44 +0000

@stefan
CM Tools v2.0 is not compatible with 3ds Max Design only 3ds Max standard is supported there are some errors that occur in design version I havn’t find time to make it compatible with this version maybe in the futur.this is why it is not included in the installer.
but just so you know this hasn’t any relatiion with CM v 2.0 the tool is designed for CM V1.

Comment on CheckMate Pro v2 Coming Soon by stefan

stefan — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:56:05 +0000

i get an error message when trying to install checkmate pro v2
“cannot find a compatible version of 3dsmax installed on this machine”
i have both 3ds max design 2013 and 3ds max design 2014 installed.

Comment on CheckMate Pro v2: Submissions and Topology Requirements by digitaldoc3d

digitaldoc3d — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:21:04 +0000

Why would you want to subdivide a hard surfaced model that is optimized for render? It creates exponentially more polys to render.

Lightwave doesn’t use the “levels of subdivision” in models that you are referencing. That occurs in Layout when the model is rendered.

Shouldn’t the version 2 specs be available in the Checkmate Pro and Lite specs on the front page of the website?

Comment on CheckMate Pro v2: Submissions and Topology Requirements by mostlysquare

mostlysquare — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:36:23 +0000

I am all for good topology. But, “thumbnails showing the model at subdivision level 0, and one level higher” was clearly written with 3ds Max users in mind.

In lightwave smoothing is handled on a surface by surface basis and does not deforms geometry. Subdividing oval or cylindrical mesh will ruin smoothing.