philnolan3d Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I've been thinking about quadrangulation, first of all as I was typing that I decided it needs a nicer name that's easier to say / type. Secondly my main point. Is it just me or does it seem like there's not a really big difference in the settings you pick? See my example below, I'd say these are pretty big extremes and while you can see the difference, the difference isn't really huge. If there was a way to get much finer detail this could easily be a way to compete with Decimation Master. Especially with how clean these polys are and how messy the DM mesh is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member erklaerbar Posted June 8, 2009 Advanced Member Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 thats true, quadrangulation works great with organic meshes, but not really with straight lines aka mechanical parts. Besides that quadrangulation rocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Paint Guy Posted June 9, 2009 Advanced Member Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I've been thinking about quadrangulation, first of all as I was typing that I decided it needs a nicer name that's easier to say / type. Secondly my main point. Is it just me or does it seem like there's not a really big difference in the settings you pick? See my example below, I'd say these are pretty big extremes and while you can see the difference, the difference isn't really huge. If there was a way to get much finer detail this could easily be a way to compete with Decimation Master. Especially with how clean these polys are and how messy the DM mesh is. Phil, I agree about the name "Quadrangulation" far too long for starters. IMO a shorter name is needed. Interesting, the left mesh has "more" polygons but "less" detail at #3 but more detail at #1 than the right mesh at #2. The right mesh has less polygons but "more" detail at #4 because the smoothing is set higher. I want to try a mesh with the same poly count like 0.5 but with smoothing at 1.00 and at 30 to see the difference. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Steve C Posted June 28, 2009 Member Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Quadrangulation = QuadR How's about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philnolan3d Posted June 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 That could work. I was thinking Auto-Retopo had a nice ring to it and tells you what it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Paint Guy Posted July 2, 2009 Advanced Member Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 That could work. I was thinking Auto-Retopo had a nice ring to it and tells you what it does. Well I think retopology is a somewhat universal term in 3D so I like "Auto-Retop" and I agree it would help if it tells you what it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member ozukaru Posted August 17, 2009 Advanced Member Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Hi, I think quadrangulate is ok, think that a quadrangulation implies a retopo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member polyxo Posted August 17, 2009 Advanced Member Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I preferred keeping the command-name. It describes precisely what it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Heath_3d Posted September 1, 2009 Member Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Quadify. but seriously.. Auto-retop gets my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member MaDDoX Posted September 17, 2009 Member Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 You know what we need to make quadrangulation truly outstanding? Arbitrary placement of poles. Those would be simple "big red spheres" that we would place on top of the original voxel model, and would work as "topology magnets", that would signal to the system that this is a spot where it's okay to have extraordinary vertices, in practice attracting mode edges towards it. On top of that, each of these "pole magnets" would have a strength setting. Zero Strength would mean pole absolutely unwanted (ie. regular four edges crossing), strength = 1 would mean an optimal spot for an Y-pole (3-edges), a strength of 2 would mean ideal star-pole (5-edges) spot and a strength of 4 or more would mean extraodinary poles (6+ edges) accepted - probably useful at the center of very flat areas that would never be deformed in animation. Guess I'll post this on feature request as well, this would be a terrific feature that would surely make even the denser critics of 3DCoat rethink their points of view Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member splodge Posted September 20, 2009 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Perhaps Andrew could add a Decimate option alongside the Quadrangulate. The decimate process could be used for hard edged stuff. So instead of Quadrangulate in the voxel menu, there would be a 'Polygonize' and 'Polygonize and Paint'. This would then bring up a panel that lets you select Decimate or Quadragulate mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.