8 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 2020-03-26 04:32

Advances in MMD technology?!

TL;DR - hawt DAMN MMD videos be looking FINE these days, how the f???

Hey all, I'm coming back to the MMD community after nearly a decade (SUPER shocked that it's still as active as ever!). While all the tools and models look the same at first glance, the videos coming out lately, particularly the R18 stuff, have some *amazing* physics going on. Am I missing something? Given how out of the loop I am, probably, but that's still a crazy enough leap that I was expecting it to be coming from a new "MMD 2" or "MMD Extended" lol

I'm talking like Source Filmmaker level bouncyness. There's plenty of clipping of course, but zero crazy glitching physics... Even the amateur stuff on Youtube (who are clearly just loading up the same data for a different model haphazardly) look GREAT. Now, the higher tier stuff with gorgeous filters & camera work look like they MUST be models ported into another program, but they are always labeled just MMD.

A model is a model regardless of the origin, and if you're willing to put in the effort they're portable to just about anything... but if you convert an MMD model into XNALara or Skyrim, it becomes an XNALara model, or a Skyrim mesh, etc etc etc, hence my disbelief.

Misleading labeling, or some awesome tool I'm not aware of?

I just downloaded v9.32 and opened up my craziest models that lagged out my old computer, and while they DID load up amazingly smoothly (on a 2018 pc), they moved as expected (like everything else from back in the day). I was playing around with MMEs sometime last year and nothing shocking jumped out at me then, either...

2020-03-26 08:51

Most of the really high quality physics videos are rendered in Blender using Eevee and mmd_tools. You can still achieve decent physics without blender, but it will require some effort in PMXE. (I don't use blender for rendering (yet))

On the visual side, most of the ones actually created in MMD use raycast and some other effects.

and for some reason people do not like to specify that they use blender

2020-03-27 02:21

There are also some really great physics effects for MMD usage nowadays. I use them a lot

2020-03-27 06:32

If you have an older computer, one thing you can do to improve the performance in MMD is upgrade your video card and max out the RAM. To use MMD with Raycast Shader you must have a 64 Bit processor, and a minimum of 8 GB of RAM. I also recommend at least 6 GB of video RAM (8 GB is better) on your video card.

2020-03-27 11:01

Maybe I should have linked some examples... I'm struggling to find the specific one that threw me for a loop with its blowjob animation unfortunately. Usually there will inevitably be clipping around the mouth, especially if the penis & face have physics (and thus freak out occasionally), but these were like they had given the lips perfect collision. Either someone spent godly amounts of time editing, or they're full of shit and rendered in SFM.

Hopefully multiple offsite links are alright, they're not mine and I'm not advertising for them, they're *just* examples. Most links are explicit, but no loli, gore, etc, just straight sex.

Something about these shaders or physics feels like it was rendered in something else, even though the motion & models originated in MMD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGPqu1BZGRI

Super plastic and stiff looking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84QPvStU2dE

Another one that just "feels" like it's SFM or something and not MMD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvo7AqdFlv0

This one... I'm not sure. It's clearly much rougher, but the chest physics are AMAZING for what looks like an otherwise low quality/vertice model: https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5bcab1f183ef1

Another I'm not 100% about. Looks like MMD motion & model-wise, but wow those shaders *__* : https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5e7d0c06ba69b

THIS ONE, there is NO way you can convince me that's MMD. It's clearly from some game or something. The face stretching, the fluid physics, and the general rubbery bounciness are just WAY too smooth for MMD: https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5e6e827eb96c9

---------------------------
Now for contrast, here's stuff that is unmistakably MMD:

Hair twitching & clipping galore: https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5c12f321696ca

Clothes that just really hate being involved: https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5e524ab7d05ac

Bad shaders, bad physics, donger just stabbing in, THIS is the quality I'm used to lol: https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5d9072a6307bf

2020-03-27 12:43

1 probably MMD with low gravity
2 probably MMD
3 Blender, has proper shirt physics
4 MMD
5 not sure, MMD is plausible though
6 one of mantis-x works, not sure what they use; this is technically feasible in MMD, but would
require a lot of effort

2020-03-27 20:58

Most of this is attributed to people actually learning to use models and physics correctly. Techniques like making a breast 'hair guard' which is static and roughly encompass the breast area. Avoiding setting a static/bone physics object within a dynamic physics object will alleviate most 'twitching'. Appropriately weighting hair mass compared to a breast. Being a bit more lax with joint constraints to give the physics object somewhere to move rather than spazzing out, ect.

Not setting up physics at the 'maxima' of its constraint is important as well. For example, use two joints - one to 'keep it within an area' and the other to 'bounce it back' with some spring force. Some models were set up with little to no play in the joint and use the 'error percent' of bullet's physics to emulate 'spring' or 'dampen' forces and relied on just adding mass. This results in really buggy physics when you try to move them past some point. An example of this is the 'banana style' breast setup that I think CM3D exports with?

I've seen some people render at half gravity and half motion speed and then speed up the final edited video by two to gain more accuracy in the physics calc.

Most of the things that look good are just more complex physics structures with way more segmented volumes and joints.

Also, many things that may look like physics interactions are just the product of pain staking animation. People animated with morphs or several weighted bones, interactions between things. If there is a nice 'donger insertion' it is not an automated physics interaction - It was a frame by frame animation/correction through morphs or weighting.

Or, as others have mentioned - they've moved on to blender. The same rules also apply there, however, to a little less degree.

2020-03-31 08:46

Thanks for all the answers everyone!

So it basically comes down to actual care & effort, possibly enhanced with Blender. That's... seriously impressive the amount of work some people put in. Though again, I'm accustomed to the huge saturation of garbage on DA & YT lol.

I've just gotten started on a from scratch model, so it's a looong way off from anything but the most basic physics, but it's still cool to dream!