Retopo this

[michalis]

I mean with a faster than click-click quads which is obvious the better way.

What snapping method are you suggesting?

How can I retopo all these great splines?

Using the hard way I'm guessing... working for some days.

[Polygoon]

Symmetry is your friend with this I think. Do 1 of the small holes & around it. Use symmetry with X, make symmetrical copy, join in between, then do the same with Y, join in between. Well that's what I would do, some people may have a better idea.

Best of luck with it.

[haikalle]

If you don't have rush with this I would wait for new auto retopoly engine.

If everything goes well this model is piece of cake for new engine.

[philnolan3d]

agreed, it looks like the new engine would handle that with just a couple clicks.

[Psmith]

This question makes me wonder about just how obsessed we are, (me too), about doing everything with just one application. Like trying to build a house with a set of wrenches.

The case you present is really a job for a CAD application, which work with solid forms, not skins, the format of all the polygon modeling applications. True, voxels work with solids, too, but, in 3D-Coat, everything needs to end up as well organized polygons that respect edges - very hard to do with retopo tools.

In a cheap or free CAD program, like Sketchup, an object like this can be made soooo quickly by dragging out a circle, extruding the thickness, drawing on the top surface 4 more circles, (rotated and copied around the center as an array), and extruded downward to form the holes. About a 30 second operation using Sketchup.

The only practical reason for using 3D-Coat for such an operation would be if, firstly, the app supported arrays and snapping - and, secondly, if the auto-topo tools accurately detect edges, (and bevels).

If that same part needed beveled edges, the creation process would be far more laborious in 3D-Coat, while needing only a little more time to be created in Sketchup. Of course, good luck translating the Sketchup Collada format into a readable.obj format.

[michalis]

If you don't have rush with this I would wait for new auto retopoly engine.

haikalle and philnolan I agree, I'll test it on this. Lets hope it will work.

Update: try relax or smoothing or subdivisions after you retopo this. he he

@Psmith: Not obsessed, its a test. But remember all these splines in voxels room which is the same. As for SketchUp (as a SU user and member of SCF) please don't do it. SU produces a so useless topology, they may have a great UI but the results are terrible. Of course I can model this in a min using blender and have nice topology and UVs, don't expect SU to do this. Here.

[proflooney]

i agree something like 3d cad program like solidworks which I use it would take 2 secs. but couldnt you just use the feature where you just draw some straight lines hit enter and you have the surfaces all coverd then just manually do the holes? i mean it really shouldnt take much to do something as simple as that flange?.

the only thing i am having probs with understanding this retopo stuff is after you get it all drawn out how do you get rid of the object you used as a base so you can save the new topology out.

Joe

[Psmith]

Proflooney:

If you mean using the retopology tools to produce a ring of polygons around the flange, the resulting topology would not end up respecting the sharp edges. Not the current set of tools, anyway.

In the retopology room you can use layers, so any new topology is preserved by itself.

But, if you plan to add anything, feature-wise, to the existing model, it makes sense to "merge" your existing model into the voxel room - add some new voxel features, and use this as a 3 dimensional template to snap your new topo lines to and export this new mesh to the paint room, complete with a normal map which represents the details you added in the voxel room.

The trouble is deciding how to create the part in the first place. CAD programs do tend to produce bad topology, so, no matter what, you are forced to redo it, somehow, if you want to use 3D-Coat to apply accurate texture details.

With Andrew's new algorithm, all kinds of new possibilities open up, which can take full advantage of all of the fabulous tools found in the voxel room - also cutting down, drastically, the amount of work needed to be performed in the retopo room. Without this new algorithm, it is "Checkmate" as far as voxels are concerned - just too laborious.

Go Andrew, Go!

[proflooney]

I agree solidworks produces some really crappy topology otherwise I would be using it to make some cool stuff as im an expert in that program from using it for years.

thanks for the tip on layers. I didnt know i had to make my topology on a layer to use it by itself I thought after I was done retopoing i could just delete the model I used as a frame for retopoing.

Joe

[polyxo]

This sounds so odd "Cad-programs create such bad topology". Actually this sentence is even wrong - the underlying

Nurbs are much more accurate as meshes ever can be. However - the mesh representing these shapes has never been intended

to get directly edited. That's why the look rather disgusting from a SubD-Modelers point of view.

Nurbs - Modelers solely concentrated on creating slim and rapidly regenerating meshes which as a secondary geometry typically

do nothing else but serve as a display-helper. For this they actually work quite well...

This said there's really tremendous advantages in using Nurbs for shapes like e.g. this flange - one can not create it faster

using any other modeling approach. And: There's no conceptual hindrance to mesh such shapes as all Quads using crossfields like

described by Bommes/Zimmer and now implemented by Andrew.

Someone simply had to do the same for a Nurbs-Modeler.

[michalis]

You can't retopo this. Be reasonable. But I can easily model it in voxels room. I can render and use it as a background image. What else?

[Taros]

Please. I have retopologized it manually, no auto audrangulation. Needed 19 minutes (tracked the time).

Ok, it is not fast and the retopo is not nice, but it is possible... and the result counts.

Best wishes

Chris

[polyxo]

You can't retopo this. Be reasonable. But I can easily model it in voxels room. I can render and use it as a background image. What else?

Hi michaelis,

I don't know whom you are addressing here - but this seemingly complex scene is composed of just very few very simple, repeating patterns which are only

varied in scale and rotation. Automatic mesh-creation for stuff like this should no more be a great problem as soon as the Mesher had "understood" the first

member in each chain.

[michalis]

Hey Taros. I didn't mean to sit down and work for all this. Well done though. But can you subdivide the topology? When I tried I lost all snapping whatever mode I tried.

For this kind of work a cad style modeler is better of course as we'll do the same job as topology with more accuracy and the half of this as we'll extrude the face.

Taro's geometry here is similar to what I did in blender, the obvious way to produce quads. As for apps like SketchUp, its impossible to produce topology like this.

Here's a tip for SketchUp. The SU pro version has a nice obj exporter, there's also a freeware ruby for the free SU. You may find useful to model very fast hard surfaces there and import them to voxel room at ~5M. Voxels delete all the stupid SU topology and you can sculpt on this and re topo as you like.

@polyxo: you're right, the only way to use splines modeling in 3DC is to work freely and rebuild the composition to another app from scratch, something like this in blender. I just imported the obj splines.

[michalis]

I almost forgot, as these splines have already some nice topology, here's auto UVs from blender, I find them superior to 3DC auto UVs.

[Taros]

Hey Taros. I didn't mean to sit down and work for all this. Well done though. But can you subdivide the topology? When I tried I lost all snapping whatever mode I tried.

For this kind of work a cad style modeler is better of course as we'll do the same job as topology with more accuracy and the half of this as we'll extrude the face.

Taro's geometry here is similar to what I did in blender, the obvious way to produce quads. As for apps like SketchUp, its impossible to produce topology like this.

...

Yes, you can subdivide it, as often as you want. No problem. Of cource there are some problems if you try to relax the polys, while they are low poly. So you should do it after some subdivisions, then it works well.

MOI 3D is a cheap nurbs modeler and exports really great mesh data, for example in OBJ file format.

[polyxo]

[quote name=Taros'

MOI 3D is a cheap nurbs modeler and exports really great mesh data, for example in OBJ file format.

Have you examined a mesh exported by Moi?

It only looks all Quads but is composed of a Quad/Ngon-mix - definedly not suitable for Subdivision.

It is a cool fast mesher - but only good for rendering.

[michalis]

@taros about moi

System requirements: Windows 7/Vista/XP/2000 with DirectX9, IE6/7/8

I haven't try this and I wont.

I started this because a new 3DC is coming.

If this thread will come to conclusions like 'poor mac users' or something then I'll start to explain to you why win OSs are, and will always be crap. Or even better I'll stop asking any advices. I bought 3DC for a mac. If this is not running then Andrew and only Andrew has to explain to me personally why this is happening. I wont ask my money back, I wont stop using the mac build, I wont ask for a free PC version too. I wont trash so many hours of work. But my advice is "buy a zbrush license" stop these obsessions about 3DC.

3DC is the best companion of zbrush.

Yes, subdivisions didn't work for me Taros, once again. That's why I'll stay to this perfect for my needs workflow (3DC basic sculpture, retopo, Zbrush, rebuild subdivisions, UVmaster-or UVblender, painting in 3DC, baking normals, or even displacements in zbrush, export as multires mesh to blender). For hard surfaces blender is beautiful for me. What other options do I have?

Now if you can't import multires to other apps, well, start learning blender. Better advice than the other ' change OS'.

If all these are expected from a mac user working on 3DC then well said.

[Taros]

Hey, keep cool.

I didn't known that there is no MAC version of MOI3d.

And where I wrote something negative about MACs? So don't do any presumption.

Any pc, and a mac is a pc too, is just a tool for me, the same with applications. If you like to work on a mac, do it. If you think blender or any other app is the right solution for your work, so why not to use it???

Again. Keep cool. I think you are a little bit harsh.

[Polygoon]

Please. I have retopologized it manually, no auto audrangulation. Needed 19 minutes (tracked the time).

Ok, it is not fast and the retopo is not nice, but it is possible... and the result counts.

Does the some what unevenness of the polygons (no criticism intended) really matter that much in the end? What I mean is, yes I can see difficulties if you want to overlay UV's to make texture files smaller, or better resolution and such ( which, as you no doubt already know can be helped a lot by using symmetry). But in the end the program whether it be 3D Coat or other reads the info of where verticies are no matter whether they are a little bit this way or little bit that way they still stick to the geometry of the voxels. You can paint on them pretty much just the same cant you? as long as they are in reasonably similar positions.

I don't know I'm not that experienced with all this yet.

Certainly looking forward to the new engine also.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Taros

[michalis]

Apologies, Taros. I was talking about the other thread, I was waiting for some kind of focused critics and we, I, started the usual about the 3DC pc build vs mac

My point is that on a mac or a pc, its impossible to achieve a multi res import in blender without the use of zbrush or some other apps except 3DC. I know that you also subdivide and export topology in your workflow. My problems start when 3DC does not use the catmull-clark method exactly. Last night I was working again having lot of baking problems. Now I understand that 3DC doesn't bake AO when in surface mode. Lot of artifacts in normal maps too, I have to return to voxels mode and do some smoothing here and there to stop this. These can be issues of re-topology in any app though. Editing large islands in UVs is a mac version issue too, nothing is moving, its too slow. Thats why I always prefer blender for this job which actually is great there.

And please don't say that macOS is not 64bit. You almost did this on the other thread.

[splodge]

Does the some what unevenness of the polygons (no criticism intended) really matter that much in the end? What I mean is, yes I can see difficulties if you want to overlay UV's to make texture files smaller, or better resolution and such ( which, as you no doubt already know can be helped a lot by using symmetry). But in the end the program whether it be 3D Coat or other reads the info of where verticies are no matter whether they are a little bit this way or little bit that way they still stick to the geometry of the voxels. You can paint on them pretty much just the same cant you? as long as they are in reasonably similar positions.

I don't know I'm not that experienced with all this yet.

Having a clean even mesh means you get clean and even shading. So basically it's possible to tell what the underlying mesh looks like just by observing how the light moves across its surface when you rotate the model or camera. The polygons stand out even more if vertex shading is used as opposed to pixel shading.

The trick is to make the polygons as evenly distributed as possible while flowing in the same direction, this way despite us still being able to actually make out the individual polygons we tend not to mind so much if they're evenly distributed across the surface.

Example:

Quadrangulate or deimate a sphere (say 1000 polygons) in 3D Coat and compare it to a parametric sphere generated in another program. Despite both spheres having roughly the same number of polygons and both being equally spherical, the quadrangulated sphere will look course and ugly in comparison. This is because the quadrangulated sphere's polygons don't have a consistent and clean flow to them.

[Polygoon]

I see. Thanks for the info splodge. I see now what michalis is referring to about what snapping method would you use.

Just a thought. Do you think then that a "circle strokes tool" would be a good idea to make the retopo more even. Something like how circles are done in AutoCAD, about a center.

Then again this new auto retopo feature may well do this anyhow, I don't know.

[splodge]

I see. Thanks for the info splodge. I see now what michalis is referring to about what snapping method would you use.

Just a thought. Do you think then that a "circle strokes tool" would be a good idea to make the retopo more even. Something like how circles are done in AutoCAD, about a center.

Then again this new auto retopo feature may well do this anyhow, I don't know.

I suppose it could've been made cleaner by like you say, drawing circular strokes around the holes and then using the strokes 'Smooth' button to make the circles more err... circular.

But the general layout of the Taros' topology looks perfect to me.