Jump to content
3D Coat Forums
farsthary

Farsthary update channel

Recommended Posts

Really cant wait for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to explain how an artist think, who use your tools. Of course the following infos are subjective, but may help you.

1. Here are three important model categories for artists who are retopologizing or modeling:

a ) The primary models. Objects of this category are mostly animated or plays a main role in the project.

b ) The secondary models. Such kind of objects are not important and in most cases not animated.

c ) The environment. Such models build the complete landscapes or fill landscapes.

Examples for category 1:

Mainly Characters or Vehicles

Examples for categroy 2:

Props like tables, rocks, sometimes vegetation or weapons

Examples for category 3:

Levels, buildings and all kind of big or static elements

Some description how we artists work (from my point of view):

When an artist use your tools for characters, then we will try to define all main polyflows first.

At the beginning an artist completely ignores the filling elements of a mesh, like big shapes and plain areas. The reason for this is the need to get the most flexible object for animation. Dynamic parts around eyes or the mouth needs clean poly circles without any tris or stars. So the artist will try to define this elements first and concentrate on them. He will create clean rings around holes and all other flexible elements, like arms or finger connections and bending parts like elbows and knees.

When the most important rings are defined, we try to fill them as exactly as possible. To achieve this we try to create straight polyflows between the single rings to connect them as clean as possible. While this process we try to get always quads, I mean ALWAYS!

When there is a situation where a tri appear, I am reconstructing my mesh at this area in the most cases to achieve a clean quad mesh. I know a lot of modelers doing the same way just to get the best result. I try to never create tris. The only exeption are models from category 2 or 3. There tris are not critical.

I am shure my explanation is just a repetition of information, you already have. But what I want to reach is, to transport you what kind of your tools will be used the most time later. I hope this helps you to set the right priority.

One example of the current situation in my opinion:

You created a curve creation mode for your great QuadPaint tool. But from my point of view this kind of curve creation is just an interesting playground for creating "dynamic" curves with tension. But an artist do not need dynamic and heavy controllable tools like this curves. For me bezier handled curves or the already nice implemented curve system in 3D-Coat is much better than yours. Why? Because the other curves gives me the most control.

Don't misunderstand me. I like you work a lot and it shows us the future of the retopo tools in 3D-Coat. But never forget to create tools that gives us the best control please. When I adjust your kind of curves for example, then I "hate" it when the curves start to move by tension. This always force me to correct already nice set pathes again. In this situation I have to redo or adjust already well defined shapes.

This is something you should improve for the final version. If you like, you can keep the dynamic creation as an option, but in my opinion we need more controlable curve creation.

At the end I will use just three of your tools:

1. Paint Quadstrips to get great poly flows and...

2. ... fill them with RFill (It is already a great time saver!!! )

3. Use QuadPaint for technical parts. I think this will be used less than the other ones but is important too.

This are just my two cents to improve your work.

Thank you very much for your efforts Raul.

You are on the right way with your development.

Chris

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said , and imagine i was ready to make a similar explanation at some point.

 

Just wanted to get the beta tools on my hand in a more "polished" level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toggle smoothing for hard mesh retopology

CgYS1lRUIAA6jZX.jpg
 
CgYS1otUsAAELl-.jpg
CgYS1oeUUAAvzcL.jpg

 

Strokes are also guidelines for enforcing certain quad flow

CgYTbBMUEAA4XkH.jpg
 
CgYTbKfUUAAG1Cn.jpg
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have a lowpoly / high poly switch?

 

For a cube with 6 faces a retopo with a 1000 polys is "unacceptable" if you know what i mean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes additionally, it would be nice if we could non-desctructively subdivide the poly's that way you could have your base framework of the the strokes which would define the number of spans and polyflow, but then a modifier which could subdivide or even degrade the mesh density would be very useful for a workflow in which you wanted to retain an optimized low poly mesh and also merge things into the sculpt room at a higher resolution for sculpting purposes.  The number or spans along each stroke is already dynamic right, so this should technically be possible?

 

It seems that non destructive subdivision is already a part of the plans for the retopo room, so forgive me if it doesn't make sense to look at implementing it yet.

 

Edit:  This looks great by the way!

Edited by gbball
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have a lowpoly / high poly switch?

 

For a cube with 6 faces a retopo with a 1000 polys is "unacceptable" if you know what i mean.

Good call, I just get 'wowed' by the ease with which hard edges are preserved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True quality is indeed great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implemented real-time preview, still needs more optimizations but enhances a lot the QuadPaint usability.

CgoDE15UkAA-F4F.jpg
 
Wow, just wow, with real-time preview is AWESOME. Need to sleep asap as I only have 5h left, tomorrow will show it.
CgoFcUaUgAEZV1K.jpg

 

Did I mention I have implemented also a third quadrangulation algorithm?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implemented partial preview (Cached preview to only update after changes), realtime preview, and toggle off

 

Added light smoothing for realtime QuadPaint for better visual matching with final result.

 

QuadPaint: your personal footprint. http://farsthary.com/2016/04/26/quadpaint-your-personal-footprint …

Cg72DVTUYAEyF1_.jpg
 
QuadPaint realtime: http://youtu.be/8k6TDuJkztk?a  
 
Added 2 preview modes: Realtime, update the topology continuously.
Performance: update only after changes.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recently I’ve added two preview modes for QuadPaint:

 

Realtime: Where you can see changes continuously, is better suited for experimentation and small to medium patches.

 

Performance: Update is done at the end of every change, ideal for medium to large patches.

 

Off: No preview, use only if the patches have lots of self intersections and vertices count.

 

In every stroke, new vertices can be added, removed and pinned. Strokes can be cut and weld too. Strokes defines the boundary and also the internal polygon flow.

 

There are three quadrangulation algorithms as well:

 

Direct, it will find the optimal way to connect the existing boundary directly.

 

Paving: Will try to find an optimal tiling based on the boundary

 

Hybrid: A new algorithm that combines the best of both.

 

Hope you like it!

 


  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I greatly admire the underlying programming skill I have to admit that I quite doubt the technical value of the sketch based topo shown in those clips...

 

Does it really make sense to follow the template volume that closely for  creation of the initial patch? I found greatly more attractive to see loser tessellation

in those patches and the main focus on proper loop structure in adjacent patches and on avoiding poles (extraordinary points) if somehow possible. A closer

fit could get obtained by subdividing and reprojecting the cage in a later step. If one rather wants to display a closely matching remesh result in realtime, one

might consider dynamic reprojected (shrinkwrapped) catmull clark subdivision built into the tool.

Edited by polyxo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I greatly admire the underlying programming skill I have to admit that I quite doubt the technical value of the sketch based topo shown in those clips...

 

Does it really make sense to follow the template volume that closely for  creation of the initial patch? I found greatly more attractive to see loser tessellation

in those patches and the main focus on proper loop structure in adjacent patches and on avoiding poles (extraordinary points) if somehow possible. A closer

fit could get obtained by subdividing and reprojecting the cage in a later step. If one rather wants to display a closely matching remesh result in realtime, one

might consider dynamic reprojected (shrinkwrapped) catmull clark subdivision built into the tool.

I see some really promising potential with the Quad Paint, but have to admit I'm not a fan of the way it usually results in all those nasty terminations, rather than looking FIRST for a clean bridge between parallel strokes. There should, by default, be a forced point order between strokes/lines. For example...if I were drawing 2 loops around the eye socket, there should be a clean bridge of polys between them...not 80% clean with some unnecessary termination on one end. I hate that (when it occurs in Auto-Retopo), cause it's counterproductive. Rather than making the task run more smoothly and efficient, it forces the user to do more work than if they used something like the Strokes tool.

 

Clean topology is what we need....not just a random patch of polygons that force me to fix the topology afterward. This tool could be useful when dealing with an irregular shape, but I still prefer the way the Blender "RetopoFlow" addon works. No need to get more fancy than that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allthough i agree ,  i believe DIRECT mode gives the clean patch we all want.

 

AWESOME WORK cant wait to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Farsthary! This looks like it could be good! I like how the user can delete points and it recalculates the mesh instantly. This used in combination with the new QuadStrips, RFill, and the other existing tools could probably add up to some major time-saving! I'm hoping that it will end up being more efficient to work with this instead of messing with the fully automatic retopo routine. I can't wait to try it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allthough i agree ,  i believe DIRECT mode gives the clean patch we all want.

 

AWESOME WORK cant wait to use it.

Yeah, after watching a 2nd time, the DIRECT method looks like it could be legit. Should be the default, no? That is what most artists will want/expect from such a tool. I didn't mean to be so negative in the previous post, but needed to express how frustrating it can be for users to work with a tool that, on the surface, looks so promising, like Auto-Retopo...but prove to be a headache to use half the time. When trying to Auto-Retopologize a head, for example, it can take HOURS trying different methods, including more strokes > fewer strokes > re-enforcing strokes (around the eye socket for example) and still find no satisfactory result.

 

At which point, you realize you wasted hours doing what otherwise would have only taken you 10-15mins if you had just used the Strokes tool from the start. I just don't want to see this tool left unpolished the way Auto-Retopo seemed to be. Maybe the DIRECT method is the Real Deal. I sure hope so. Great work, thus far, Raul. :good: Please keep it up...you're almost there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the DIRECT method is the "loose" retopology you are talking about, is nice and clean, ZERO poles, at the expense of giving up some control, like polyxo and AbnRanger said. I should probably demonstrate it more.

 

The purpose of the HYBRID method is that the patch shape dictates the polygon flow and there lies the control, you don't need HOURS to came up here with nice results, just minutes,  yes, sometimes you need to tweak afterwards, but those are minor tweaks. You can experiment , go back and forth and for artist you will master the tool very quickly.

 

This is a semi-automatic retopology tool, it means you will still have to work for what you want, is not a button do-it-all-for-me. Eventually I could work in a fully automatic method, either improving Autopo or extending it with these algorithm but for now I'm here. 

In those clips I showed careless patching, for demostration purposses. A real artist who wants to control the polygon flow better will come up with better patches.

Direct: patches loosely controls quad flow, No poles

Hybrid: patches strongly controls the flow, some poles but more natural flow according to the parch shape.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it work with the different E panel brushes like lasso, circle and rectangle marquee?

 

Also, with hybrid, can we create an eye or mouth of concentric loops with 1 stroke? If not, perhaps a LOOPS mode.

Will it work on limbs to create a cylindrical patch of polygons?(I don't see why not, but I haven't seen it demonstrated.)

Those are the questions I'm wondering.  But it really is looking great!

Edited by gbball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@gball with hybrid you can create loop like but not using concentric loops, using 1 loop cut in half by one stroke, quads will follow the outer loop.

 

A quick test using only DIRECT, it require more tweaking than hybrid though.

ChEKC-sWwAAq2Gd.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice.  

 

I know it's asking your for more work, but any way it could work with 1 stroke?  Or with e panel ellipse/rectangle?

 

How does it work btw?  Does it work based on arc or angle of strokes to determine where there should be a loop vs a corner?  Or do intersecting lines create corners?  Maybe if there was  a LOOPS mode, the user would have more control over the initial type of quad layout that they'd get.  Like if you drew a square using 2 sets of parallel strokes using the existing stroking method or with the e-panel rectangle (ideally) you could still get concentric loops if that was the chosen algorithm.  LOOPS mode could have a second parameter which would ask for a capping method (quad,triangles,ngon...etc.) 

 

Just an idea. Not trying to give you tons of extra work if it doesn't add that much outside of what's already there.  But if it's easy, then why not.

Edited by gbball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently it doesn't work with selection shapes. You have to stroke them. Is interesting what you propose but other than the initial patch I don't see many uses for it. As you start filling the mesh you dont have many choices to create perfect ellipses, rectangles, etc. You just draw what you need according to the remaining surface and the boundary of existing mesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×