Support > Wish List

Excessive triangulation

(1/3) > >>

Fonte Boa:
First of all, congratulations for MeshMixer: very interesting concept, i would like to test it more.

I am a intensive Wing3D user and got news about MeshMixer at ODF forum.

So my first experiment was to send a mesh from Wings3D to MeshMixer, via OBJ format
(i've already downloaded and installed dec.6 last MM installer, ok)
OBJ export Wings3D dialog allows me to choice between two kinds of Tesselation (Triangulation and Quadrangulation), or either NONE. I could get some serious MeshMixer crashes when no tesselation option was set (if you are interested i can send you some simple meshes that i couldnt load at MM.

But i would like to ask you if at future MeshMixer couldnt avoid to generate so many triangles and try to minimize this aspect. I really work will (almost) all quad meshes, and the main issue i could experiment with MeshMixer is its tesselation algorithm. There are situations at which if i just export an OBJ to MM from Wings, load it, save it back from MM and load it again at Wings, i can see unecessary tris...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lDKeBF_E_M

Anyway, congratulations for the great work and excuse my bad english.

RMS:
Yes, please send me meshes that will not open. Also if you could send me that example you use in the video (the part file too, if you can), that would be helpful.

I will try to improve the triangulation, but it is *very* difficult to stitch with quads...
cheers,
-RMS

Fonte Boa:
Thanks for the reply.

<<it is *very* difficult to stitch with quads>>

I imagine so. Between when original mesh was built all-quads, maybe you can code MeshMixer so that it can "find" coincident verts and just weld them, as an alternative to  fill the boundary region with triangles.  Then the retopology work time (at another 3d app) can be minimized.

Maybe if ROI Scale can be set to 0 (=zero) (no actually possible)
and if cut part could keep its original scale
and if MeshMixer could, under this situation, just weld coincident vertices (*)
(and/or allowing vertices with 3 edges, 3-poles ones),
maybe undesired triangulation could be avoided.

(just thinking aloud)

Thanks for your attention.

EDIT:
(*) or forcing this weld operation.

RMS:
Yes, I have thought about welding. I could relatively easily collapse the triangles I add, but the pastes would not be as smooth. Do you think that is less important?

cheers,
-RMS

Fonte Boa:
<<I could relatively easily collapse the triangles I add, but the pastes would not be as smooth. Do you think that is less important?>>

If your are managing all-quad mesh, the most important would be to keep edge loop flow.
This probably isnt so easy to do, but any effort to avoid triangles at boundarie region would be very appreciated.
Because, anyway, animators that can make use of MeshMixer
will probably re-topology that region (to keep the results under control)
and will spend time in this.

(currently i will begin to test if a reazonable workflow could be
export the mesh all triangulated to MM to then get it back and just try do untriangulate it:
i dont expect great results from this, but i have to try)

The ideal would be to keep that region all quad,
either by collapsing the triangles even by leaving 3 edges poles.
A tolerance setup to (automactly?) weld verts would be useful in this case.
Or either a second alternative:
1st one: fill with triangles
2nd one: keep quads, respecting edge loops...

(i am not sure, but there can be users to who those triangles dont matter:
to animators that prefers to work with quadraculate tesselations,
any alternative would pe really appreciated).

tks for your attention, RMS.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page