Quad Remesher auto-retopologizer

It’s poorly named, should be called “Hobbyist”. You can’t make money from it, is what non-commercial implies.


Yep – Indie is entrepreneurial business, small-scale commercial. Calling a non-commercial license “Indie” is, at best, an unacceptable misuse of the word.


I understand the confusion. I’ve personally got a Perpetual Pro license, as I’m also using it for commercial jobs and don’t want to be restricted.

what would be a good way to get a nice result with this type of shape?

qrm_test1.blend (590.5 KB)

1 Like

actually I got it! So much to learn with this thing!



Alternatively, you could assign separate materials to the faces of the problem areas, and use the Use Materials option to Quad-Remesh the areas individually.

If the flat areas consist of a lot of faces, you can select a face and use Shift + G (Select Similar) ➔ Normal or Co-Planar.

Since you’ve used the add-on longer than most, would it be possible if you made a tutorial showing off those features? :smile:

Also, I agree with the above posters about calling one of the purchase options “indie” is a bad idea. Indie is as much commercial as any big studio would be, so calling it such is pretty misleading. That license is more of a hobbyist license than anything else.


I’m just curious here. Doesn’t this add-on break the Blender license? By requiring a license to use it inside of Blender’s code and I don’t seem to be able to view the code of the actual remeshing addon. Just the add-on for the license.

No, it doesn’t break the license. It’s the equivalent of automating exporting an FBX, bringing it into ZBrush, remeshing and then exporting it back out. Might break the spirit of the license and its original intent, depending on your viewpoint of the GPL. There are other addons for Blender that do things a similar way like OpenVDB Remesh and Octane Render.

The actual Quad Remesher algorithm is proprietary code, but as the Python add-on is open, I believe the Blender license is not breached. I’m sure the developer has investigated this before creating the Blender implementation.

1 Like

Yeah that’s what i have noticed ,it’s like you’re using a different app to do the process then import the result back to blender, so it’s a bridge between the two.

Perfectly legal. That’s exactly how you create a proprietary add-on. And, seeing how the main code is used in several commercial plugins, it makes sense to do it this way as well.


That’s correct. The FBX format is used to interchange mesh data between the host 3D software and the Quad Remesher module. That’s why no Face Map support is possible for now, but a converter from Face Maps to materials was added Instead.

I have discovered after quite a few attempts that the addon seems to be scale-sensitive. The same model might just give you a much better retopo if it’s scaled down to under a meter. I think that’s a bug, but not sure.

1 Like

Interesting. You’d think that a larger size would yield a more accurate result, because of less floating point calculations.

1 Like

IMHO what you’d really think is that the internal calculations would happen in a normalized space and it would be scale-independent.

1 Like

Indeed. Did you Apply Scale to each size of your tests?

No, just scaling the model down without applying seems to fix a lot of problems. Scale is probably automatically applied on FBX export.


Useful info, thanks. I’ll add this to the tips in the initial post.

1 Like

That said, this is just my feeling. For example, that spiraling model retopoed without issue after scaling down.

A more scientific investigation would be in order. The addon does still work at bigger scales, it just tends to have more topology issues for some reason.