Hi Brian,

> There are becoming such a growing list of, well,
> "workarounds" that worry me a bit!

Well, I'd say it is pretty normal for a 1.0 version to not have every single possible thing added into it.

Currently MoI is not oriented towards that kind of surface point squishing modeling. It is possible to do some workarounds if you really really want to use it in that way, but that general style of modeling won't really be a proper fit until I get a chance on enhancing and adding those kinds of tools into the software.

In general that style of modeling has not been a priority for MoI because point squish style modeling tends to be better suited for subdivision surface modelers anyway.

So instead of spending a lot of initial time developing features that are not in MoI's technologically strong area, I instead put a lot more initial effort into things that were more in MoI's strong area, such as booleans between solids and curves, stuff like that.


> (Are these sort of things collated properly somewhere in "helps"?)

Yup, this particular thing is documented inside of Extrude:
http://moi3d.com/1.0/docs/moi_command_reference7.htm#extrude

quote:
"Extrude with Set path has the special property that the output surface will have the exact same control point structure as the curves used to generate it, so sometimes this can be useful if you want to set up a surface and manipulate the surface's control points to deform it."


In general though I haven't put in a lot of effort on tutorials for surface point squishing right now because like I mentioned, MoI does not really currently have the full set of tools to do a proper job of that style of modeling right now.


> Be nice if this could happen in MoI later.

Yup, that is another one of the tools that go along with surface point manipulation type modeling.

I do want to add this stuff in at some point... It's all a matter of priorities, if I had focused on adding this right away then I would not have been able to do something else that is in MoI now.

- Michael

"Yup, this particular thing is documented inside of Extrude:
http://moi3d.com/1.0/docs/moi_command_reference7.htm#extrude

quote:
"Extrude with Set path has the special property that the output surface will have the exact same control point structure as the curves used to generate it, so sometimes this can be useful if you want to set up a surface and manipulate the surface's control points to deform it."

Michael, I was not complaining about it not being "In" MoI. But the above, which I extracted, does not clearly visualise that workaround we are discussing----well, at least,--- to my old brain! (much better in your post 1313.2)

I would hate MoI to go down the (oh my gosh) LightWave track--billions of "plugins" requiring a dictionary for explanation! And, even becoming another Rhino!

I know it's a tightrope walk.

Having the "improved!" soft selection idea in another version would be great. I have the advantage of being able to go to other apps to get it---- also like the displacement painting! So, for me, its only a maybe wish list item really.

I know--everyone said this ages ago!

Thought1. The "Add Points" could have a "Number Of" attachment?

Thought2. An "Area Select" could be added?

PS--You are allowed to shout out IF I have some original ideas---I need to print it out to show my Wife!

Hi Brian.

1) Do you mean to say "Add Points", as inserting knots into the surface? Or you referring to "growing" a selection (as in "Shift+" in Hexagon)? I think adding points is a very different thing entirely... Or maybe you did mean that? :\

2) Are you requesting to grow the point selection by a distance in both U and V from the first selected point? Such a function is handy but not as elegant as a dynamic selection radius which updates as you change your input.

I think your requests might need a bit more explanation...

jonah

Hi Brian, like Jonah says maybe a little more detail on your requests? I'm not quite sure if I am interpreting them correctly.


> The "Add Points" could have a "Number Of" attachment?

There will be a separate command called "Rebuild" that will let you reconstruct a surface to a given point grid count. I think that might be the type of thing that you're asking about here?


> Thought2. An "Area Select" could be added?

You can force an area select currently if you hold down Shift+Ctrl when you click and drag. Normally you will get an area selection if you click and drag in an empty area, but if you click and drag on an object, you get object dragging instead.

If you hold down Shift+Ctrl then it will disable object dragging and do area selection instead even if your initial drag point was on an object, so it is a way to force the area selection to happen in situations where object dragging is happening by default instead.

Does that do what you wanted for this one?

- Michael

Sorry Jonah! if this old brain gets lost in termanology.
1. (Michaels post 1313.2) When adding to the curve with "add point", being able to sellect a number of (evenly spaced I guess) add points.?

2.Perhaps I am trying to ask, firstly, that you can actually do an area select of points---not really possible (in all circumstances) at the moment, but also, maybe in a later version?, that that area select is "graduated in strength" from centre to edge of the selection?

Sorry if my explanations are not 3D etc logical.

Just trying to add ideas to the thinkings.
Brian

And now I see a post by Michael that I have to look at!
Wow is me!

Hi Brian,

> But the above, which I extracted, does not clearly visualise
> that workaround we are discussing----well, at least,--- to my
> old brain! (much better in your post 1313.2)

Well, that's the reason why there is a forum, to be a place to provide more information about how things work and to answer questions.

Over time I can incorporate discussions and answers given in the newsgroup back into the help-file documentation.

It is a pretty tough job to make the help file documentation perfect and answer every question about every task in the clearest and most complete manner right in its first edition! :)


> I would hate MoI to go down the (oh my gosh) LightWave
> track--billions of "plugins" requiring a dictionary for explanation!
> And, even becoming another Rhino!
>
> I know it's a tightrope walk.

It really is a tightrope - the tricky part is that each feature that you ask me to add in adds some level of complexity to the program.

Being able to offload some less frequently used functions to a plugin system can help to keep the core program more simple and easier to use for a central set of basic tasks.

- Michael

Michael, that Shift/Ctrl selection offers some good solution.
Not in the shortcuts?

(Mostly I don't know what I am talking about so do not worry too much!)

Hi Brian,

> Michael, that Shift/Ctrl selection offers some good solution.
> Not in the shortcuts?

Nope, the shortcuts are for custom actions that you can assign to a keystroke, like Ctrl+A.

This Shift+Ctrl option goes along with a mouse click, not a keystroke, it isn't the same thing as a shortcut key.

This option is documented on the wiki here: http://moi3d.com/wiki/Hidden_Secrets

Don't forget to check the wiki (http://moi3d.com/wiki) for additional supplemental information and documentation, it is kind of like a dynamic part of the help file.

- Michael

"Nope, the shortcuts are for custom actions that you can assign to a keystroke, like Ctrl+A.

This Shift+Ctrl option goes along with a mouse click, not a keystroke, it isn't the same thing as a shortcut key."

Michael thats about as questionable an answer as I have ever read? I guess age has something to do with it.

Also,---In relation to the future Area Select/Rebuild solution I guess thats right----but I have to do a mind twist to understand that also---semantics of my world and the 3D world I guess?.

Hi Brian,

> Michael thats about as questionable an answer as I
> have ever read? I guess age has something to do with it.

Maybe we're talking about different things?

I thought you were asking why this wasn't under the Shortcut keys section in the Options dialog.

It's not there because that whole section is about shortcut keystrokes and not mouse click or mouse drag actions.

I don't currently have a place to edit mouse-driven actions like this selection mouse drag.

- Michael

Hi PaQ - getting back to your original question at the start of this thread, I have been taking a look at your unexpected result there and it does appear that the "Avoid smaller than" parameter is not working correctly.

It is making that odd result in the fillet because when it is kicking in due to one direction being smaller than that distance, it is deciding to do the subdivision in the direction that has the biggest angle to it, even if that direction was the one that was under the "avoid smaller than" distance. So that's why it divides more along that more tightly bent fillet direction.

It looks like it should have a pretty simple fix, if you send me an e-mail (moi@moi3d.com) I can send it to you.

However, even with this fixed it isn't really the best way to create a regular spaced mesh, really the best way to do that is as in Steve's example where you try to avoid a tight angular parameter and instead drive it primarily off of the "Divide larger than" distance.

The "Avoid smaller than" is really more intended to prevent heavy meshing of little tiny rounded features in a larger model. It can help avoid some subdivision, but driving it primarily in the other method tends to make a more evenly spaced starting mesh before any subdivision is attempted, which I think is what you are really looking for here?

- Michael

Michael.
I don't want to belabour the point, but, to an old fogie like me, a "key stroke shortcut" and "keystroke plus mouse/or/etc click" are all the same thing--keystroke shortcuts.

I have put that Shift+Ctrl---Area Select onto my desk printout and it looks like a shortcut to me.

The English language and semantics are enough to make one go bald!

Hi Michael,

Thanks a lot for fixing this parameter. I didn't expect that, you're really amazing !
(And I understand the point about using manz' tip, but I'm a fillet addict, I'm creating fillets everywhere hehe,
so it will greatly help to lower the polycount on huge object :))

Is your fix particular for this model or for any model?

Hi Brian,

> I have put that Shift+Ctrl---Area Select onto my desk
> printout and it looks like a shortcut to me.

I guess another way I can describe it is: that particular method of using a modifier key with the mouse is not editable in MoI right now.

That's why it does not show up in the shortcut key editor.

The shortcut key editor only contains items that are made up of all keystrokes and nothing else, not stuff for mouse clicks.

- Michael

Hi Pilou,

> Is your fix particular for this model or for any model?

It's more about the combination of a denser angle setting along with using the "Avoid smaller than" setting. That particular combination doesn't work properly.

If the small polygons are on a shape more evenly curved in both directions like a sphere, then the problem won't happen, that's why I didn't notice the problem before.

If you are running into this problem with the "Avoid smaller than" setting (which does not tend to be used very frequently typically), then go ahead and e-mail me and I can send a fix for it.

- Michael

This is EXACTLY the subject of a thread I was going to start "MOI at the Polygon Level"...

I was going to ask HOW to control the mesher when generating mechanical shapes (spaceships in my case) that contain fillets.

It's like the polygon pattern on one part of the mesh would be fine but at a fillet, the "crossing" lines instead of connecting to one another, would be "off" by small amounts similar to the original poster's picture.

I know it was said that unjoined parts would have non-matching edges when meshed, but I'm talking a SINGLE object here and hardly none (if any) of my fillet's topologies match the main surface(s).

At one point I was in XSI moving edges around and merging points ("Push and pull points until your eyes bleed..." - I forget who said that but I totally understand the sentiment!)

I'm glad to see perhaps a bug was found (I'd like a chance at any patches put out as well!)

But Michael, is there ANY way that you'll be able to get the mesher to join major cross-sectional edges around fillets and curves without all of the dis-joins?

I don't mind doing some tweaking at the edge/polygon level but it can get rough and very time consuming at times.


I know perhaps MOI isn't the right modeler to use when your target might end up being a game engine and clean geometry is a high priority but you can't help but love how quickly MOI lets you get your shapes created!

-Will

Hi Will,

> I know it was said that unjoined parts would have non-matching
> edges when meshed, but I'm talking a SINGLE object here and
> hardly none (if any) of my fillet's topologies match the main surface(s).

You should end up with all matching points along every joined edge.

But let me clarify what this means exactly, it is not the same thing as having only quads touching other quads which I think is what you are asking for.

Here's an example output mesh - I'll focus on this highlighted polygon:



This is between joined surfaces, so extra work has been done to make this shared edge between the 2 surfaces get meshed with a matching point structure so that there are no gaps or holes in the mesh there.

The highlighted polygon is a 6-sided n-gon, here you can see some red lines for each edge of it:



Note the circled vertices above - these are the "matching" ones - the n-gon has a vertex at every spot of a vertex on the mesh of the upper surface.

Now take a look at what happens if the surfaces are not joined:



In the above case I separated the object into individual surfaces, so there is no knowledge of the "shared-ness" between those pieces. Each one gets meshed and optimized in isolation, resulting in different mesh structures. You can see that the polygon that used to be a 6-sided n-gon is now only a 5-sided n-gon, those lines show the edges there - notice how they do not match up to the other surface's mesh? That means that there are little holes and gaps between these 2 mesh objects, this is what I mean by "not aligned vertices".

When you have joined objects, the vertices of each piece are aligned so that there is a "water tight" alignment with no holes between each piece. That's the kind of matching that I am usually talking about.

The kind of alignment that you are asking for is another step yet beyond that. You want the u/v layout of the underlying quad grid of 2 adjacent surfaces to match.

I have done some work to make that kind of matching happen in certain circumstances, like surfaces of revolution that touch each other like a sphere touching a cylinder, will get that kind of extra alignment now:



But it is a lot more difficult to make this happen between more arbitrary surfaces that have different UV layouts to them.

> But Michael, is there ANY way that you'll be able to get the mesher
> to join major cross-sectional edges around fillets and curves without
> all of the dis-joins?

I do have some ideas on making this extra alignment happen in some more situations in the future.

But it is a really difficult job to provide it especially in cases where the pieces join at trim edges in the surface that are not aligned to a natural uv line of the surface.

If you want to post an example model where you wish the alignment was better, I could tell you whether it might be possible to improve that, or whether it won't be.


> I'm glad to see perhaps a bug was found (I'd like a chance at any
> patches put out as well!)

Right now I don't have a patch distribution system set up for the web site. I can send it to you if you e-mail me though. However, it does not improve this kind of alignment, it is a fix for using the "Avoid smaller than" parameter in combination with a tighter angle. I don't expect it to give you any benefits for what you are looking for right now.


> I know perhaps MOI isn't the right modeler to use when your
> target might end up being a game engine and clean geometry
> is a high priority

I am actually very interested in developing as clean mesh geometry as possible! MoI is really on the cutting edge of this already right now, but I do want to try and improve it even further.

If you can post some examples of your current results and describe a bit more what you wish that you got instead, that would help give me more test cases to work with for future tune ups.

- Michael

Thank you very much Michael, you touched exactly on my problem - exactly what I was talking about!

Yes, I agree that the surfaces are actually joined but perhaps a coined term is they're not aligned?

What I typically do as in exactly the vertices you circled is to move them around and merge them together, add additional edges where required etc., but obviously it becomes very time consuming when you try to dense up the model at export to make the matching a bit better...

I noticed that selecting quads/tris DO seem to help get better alignment between the edges of varying topologies but then you end up with more work.

I definitely understand how complex this issue is but I've always held the opinion is that the value in MOI is FIRST its mesher and second, its GUI!

If you can conquer this delima then I'll definitely expect to see you stealing awards from ILM, Pixar and others along with all kinds of magazine and blog articles! ;-)

-Will