By Taron with Sculptris ;)

Hi Michael,

> Hi Rich_Art, so it appears to be a bug
> somewhere in the triangulator.

I've had a couple of these in the past and accepted it as a graphic glitch as it wrote out the surface okay and I moved on, did you want me to report these in the future?

@ Pilou, that's one ugly looking creature, kind of cool though :)

-

Thanks Michael.
As said, it is no big deal. I'm just doodling with Moi....

Peace,
Rich_Art. :-)

Hi Danny,

> I've had a couple of these in the past and accepted it as a graphic glitch as it wrote out the
> surface okay and I moved on, did you want me to report these in the future?

Yeah, it would be good to get these cases so I could look into them. If it's a cosmetic glitch it might go on the back burner for a while but it would be good to have the buggy case all the same. You can just send them to me at moi@moi3d.com .

Thanks, - Michael

No probs Michael, will do.

-

Oh cool, a new beta :)

Are we still fine to use our old .ini files?

The new one looks a bit different...

Hi NightCabbage, yup the same .ini file from previous versions should work fine. There actually haven't really been any changes there for a while, what is it that seems different?

- Michael

Oh, ok, must just be general layout or structure. I think mine's probably from an early V2 beta anyway :P

Hi NightCabbage - it's possible that the ordering of the different sections may be different from v2 for when a brand new moi.ini file is created from scratch when there is not any existing one. But that ordering doesn't make any actual difference in use.

Also if you push the "Edit .ini file" button on the Options dialog, it will modify the .ini file to prettify it for direct editing by putting in an extra blank line to separate each section, if you have not pushed that button there won't be any spacing in it.

- Michael

Hah, never knew that, cool :)

Nice changes to the network command....still waiting on these continuity options though/and or merge surface command(please,please,pretty please make it part of the UI)

> still waiting on these continuity options

...the dream! ;-)

Imagine a utopian future world of peace, harmony, Match Surface edges, >2 edge Blends surface patches, and surface curvature continuity tools.

Didn't Walt Disney champion that ideal once?

Be careful what you wish for, Mike. Surface continuity may not work the way you think it will.

> still waiting on these continuity options

Me to, this is the single feature I'm looking forward to seeing in MoI the most.

Well, if there's any positive reassurance about implementing features like continuity, is that Michael is a master at perfecting and carefully weighing the finer points of his programming. If it's going to suck, he's going to let us know why, no loss. If he can work it... MoI just gets better!

"Surface Continuity" is sure to be a complex science in of itself - but I would first settle for at least the ability to "Tangent" surface edge coincidences. Even if the resultant surfaces look a little lumpy, at least we can get rig of those seams.

Hi Michael,

Thanks a lot for the update.

I'm not sure I really understand the network fitting mode,

On the example here, every mode seems to give the same result in the surface complexity.



... do you have any visual example/result when using those modes ?

Hi PaQ - that's a bug - the case of an only 3 or 4 sided network with no interior sections is handled by a special case and doesn't currently get the new options applied to it at all.

I'll update that for the next release. Currently if you stick in a middle curve in there in either direction then the new options should work.

Use Construct > Curve > Iso to quickly plop in a curve in the middle of that surface you got there, then redo the network including the middle curve.

- Michael

Oh cool Michael, I have been missing that form of network structure, it is a must have for me. Thanks !!

Martin

Well that explains why I wasn't able to tell the difference!

...kinda like telling the difference between Unleaded, Plus, and Super...

So the higher the definition or number of points, the more well defined the surface is. The less the definition, the fewer control points are used to define the surface, but the more abstract it becomes.

Very useful if you like going in and moving control points to add bumps or features.

Hi Mike,

> So the higher the definition or number of points, the more well defined the surface is. The less the definition,
> the fewer control points are used to define the surface, but the more abstract it becomes.

Yup, that's a good way to put it!

Fewer points will make a lighter surface with less details (and less potential for bumps so lighter tends to be inherently smoother) in it, but one that does not stick as accurately to the input curves.

A higher tolerance or point count will make a denser surface that will conform more accurately to the input curves but also with a more complex surface there is usually more of a chance for bumps.

There was also a bug that I fixed separate from that tolerance adjusting stuff where the wrong knot vector was being used in some places in the Network surface generation, and that was causing some additional bumps getting created in some cases as well.

- Michael