Full Version: Top 5 Features list for V3 !

Show messages:  1-8  …  309-328  329-348  349-368  369-388  389-408  409-428  429-442

Hi Felix - if you're adding details in 3D Coat and you're using its voxel editing mechanism, it doesn't actually make any difference if you have all quads or all triangles - when you import your polygon model into 3D coat for editing using the voxel toolset it gets converted from polygons into a voxel structure at that time, and it does not matter if you have all quads in the original polygon structure or not.

You would only want to go to "all quads" if you were going to be using a sub-d modeling toolset to do further work on the object.

Sub-d smoothing is the thing that particularly likes quad topology - voxelization does not care about it.

- Michael

---

Hi Felix, also is that a ZBrush screenshot you're showing there?

You don't need to have all quads to go to zbrush either - you can send a finely diced up mesh and then turn off the "smoothing" modifier inside of Zbrush and it will then not try to use the mesh as a sub-d cage and instead just displace the polygons directly. See here for an example:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=804.26

Zbrush has a setting in its subdivide method for whether to use sub-d smoothing during the subdivision or not - you want to turn that off.


Are you really sure that you actually need "all quads" in your output? Can you maybe give some more detailed information about what processes you use on the mesh after you export it from MoI? Because if you want to use those brush based deformation tools on it, that should be possible to use without needing special sub-d oriented "all quad" topology.

Have you possibly seen some tips from people saying that all quads is an absolute necessity for everything? The thing is, that only actually applies to one particular workflow of doing actual sub-d modeling, it does not apply to other situations.

- Michael

---

Michael,

I agree with you for both 3D-Coat and ZBrush quads aren't necessary. For Blender though it's another story and I assume it could be the case for many other programs. There are also another kind of program that convert the mesh to a bitmap, these don't need quads either but editing these in the program is somewhat limited, at least those I've tried.

I know it not your problem but I have a hard time learning new stuff and it's the reason I'm using as much as possible programs I've used a long time ago like Blender. It's kind of the bicycle thing, ounce you learn it you don't forget it.

I tried the trial version of ZBrush and I'm useless with it, it's way to different then anything I've used and when it ended I had not made any significant progress with it so I didn't buy it.

The image I provided is a screen capture from 3D-Coat (trial version). This one seems more user friendly to me at least and maybe I'll buy it. The main reasons would be that quads aren't necessary and hopefuly, I'll be able to learn enough to use it for my needs.

Thanks,
Felix

---

Hi Felix, what particular tools are you using in Blender - you can do things like sculpt mode in Blender on triangle meshes and not only quads as well.

If you're doing sub-d modeling, then yes you need to have a sub-d friendly mesh structure for that and typically that kind of structure just does not get created for you automatically, you will be looking at doing retopology for that.

- Michael

---

>Hi Felix, re: all quads - as far as I know 3D Coat's automated conversion tool would be your best bet. I'm not aware of >any other automated processes right now except maybe in Finite Element Analysis software which does analysis of object >structures for strength and such. I think some of them have some quad meshing mechanisms in them but that software >tends to be extremely expensive.

Hi Michael and Felix,

here's a free Windows software which produces quad meshes. Input format is .ply

http://www.it77.de/studienarbeit/index.htm

Regards
Stefan

---

<< here's a free Windows software which produces quad meshes. Input format is .ply

so meshlab will be your save life :)
http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/

---

.

---

Michael,

the problem with Blender is that yes I can sculpt and or edit an imported STL for example but to get a nice and smooth model the mesh as to be quite dense and unfortunatly even with an 8 core cpu and 6 gig off memory Blender become quite sluggish, basically unsusable.

Also, yes retopo would be necessary to do something useful with Blender. Fortunatly for me, programs that translate the mesh to something else, either voxels and or bitmap are not as fussy about the mesh structure and size.

Though I can understand the major difference between Sub-D and Nurbs I would have thought the transition between the 2 would have been made much easier by now. Unfortunatly for me, my goal is to machine the model I would create. The mesh needs to be dense enough to be machined smoothly, especially the small parts. I understand also the quality of machined model is dependent on the CAM software and the macine itself.

Thanks,
Felix

---

Hi Felix,

> Though I can understand the major difference between Sub-D and Nurbs
> I would have thought the transition between the 2 would have been made
> much easier by now.

The problem is that sub-d requires a particular kind of topology and edge flow which is usually implemented by a human using their judgement and experience on how to arrange all the elements.

It's quite difficult to replicate processes that require judgement like that since they're not like checking off a list of simple yes/no type decisions like a computer algorithm is fundamentally based off of.

Retopologizing toolsets are probably what you would need to be focusing on if you need to do this kind of conversion.

- Michael

---

Michael,

yes again, retopo is the route one as to take now and there are good tools for doing just that out there. You'll probably agree with me that an even better route would be to start directly our work with a SubD program and bypass completely the retopo and or conversion phase. IMHO it would be much more efficient.

Out of curiosity, to your knowledge, is the route from SubD to NURBS somewhat more efficient? I just love using MOI and I'd like for example to be able to add a part made as a mesh from the start, say the "flowers" I made earlier to a mirror frame made in MOI. I already know I could convert the mesh to a heightmap and use ZSurf to get a Nurbs surface. Though it would probably work fine, it's not what I would call an efficient route.

Thanks,
Felix

---

Hi Felix,

> Out of curiosity, to your knowledge, is the route from SubD to NURBS
> somewhat more efficient?

It is, but going in that direction is a relatively new area of tech and it's not very common yet.

But there are 2 tools that can move things in that direction - either the T-Splines plug-in for Rhino (http://www.tsplines.com/) or the Power SubD-NURBS plugin for Modo (http://www.luxology.com/store/Power_SubD-NURBS/) can convert a SubD control cage to smoothed NURBS surfaces.

- Michael

---

Michael,

thanks for the info. TSplines seems awsome at first glance, it looks like it brings the best of both WORLD into a single uniform environment. I kind of like that approach. As for Power SubD-Nurbs, it seems more like a mean to translate SubD to Nurbs which is nice as well. Different approach and workflow, I guess it's a question of personal preferences.

Thanks again,
Felix

---

Oh the requests... they just keep on coming!!! ;-)

Have a very happy 4th of July Michael!



I thought I'd enhance my request for the Array by Rotation tool:

Not only could you choose the axis of rotation in 3d space, (while in 3D view too)

but you could also move both the axis point(s) and original object while the dialog is still up and you have yet to hit the "done" button.

This way, one would not have to hit cancel so many times just to reposition the object or axis before rotating.

---

Hi Michael ...
I would like to see a feature like Sketchup's 'section plane' ... it works line a boolean difference through an object but is not a permanent change and can be easily moved backward and forward fluidly.
It may be fairly simple but I can understand that it might be a hugely complicated bit of programming.
cheers,
eric

---

Workplane is the first thing I need for now

---

Hi wireframeX,

> Workplane is the first thing I need for now

Check out the Construction Plane tool under View > CPlane, more info here:

http://moi3d.com/2.0/docs/moi_command_reference5.htm#cplane

- Michael

---

Does exist a whish list for the V3 like this one ?
http://moi3d.com/wiki/Wishlist

---

Hi Pilou,

> Does exist a whish list for the V3 like this one ?
> http://moi3d.com/wiki/Wishlist

I've just been using this particular thread in the forum as the V3 wishlist.

- Michael

---

Wow thanks !!!

Didn't view it ....

---

Hi Michael,
I'm also interested to a function similar to "section plane" of SketchUp.
In Rhino a similar function is "clipping plane" and you can define as many clipping planes as you need defining also thickness and colour of the section border with the possibility to have or not a filled cap (if the volume clipped is a solid). In other SW you can define also clipping volumes.
For complex structures, AEC, and assemblies it is a feature really important.
Thanks,
Giovanni

P.S. In sketchup a minus of "section plane" is that you can have only one section plane active (there are workarounds using groups or components but the workflow is not so easy)

---

Show messages:  1-8  …  309-328  329-348  349-368  369-388  389-408  409-428  429-442