Hey everyone. I know question has been asked before, but, in my searching, not for at least a year so I figured I’d revisit it. I know that shape keys are created specifically based on vertex location, so expecting to decimate down a polycount while maintaining vertex keys is not an easy thing to “just do.” No need to explain there. However, we are trying to hit a certain polygon count for exporting to unity, and to redo several dozen shape keys is going to take a significant amount of time. I know you can delete edge loops and still maintain shape keys so clearly some aspects of the shape keys are able to account for missing vertices.
Is there any modern solution that anyone has developed to reduce the poly count of an object but still maintain its set shape keys? That’d be a huge help if anyone has any ideas.
The only way I know is to have 3 versions of the model, 2 low poly, and 1 high poly. Put one of the low poly models directly over your high poly model so that they match up in the same space. Then put a shrinkwrap modifier on the low poly(this will make the low poly conform to the high polygon model).
Then morph your first shape key on the high poly model. The low poly model with the shrinkwrap modifier will morph with it(if it’s not too low poly). Then apply the shrinkwrap modifer.
After that you can transfer the shape of the shrinkwrapped version to the other low poly model by selecting the shrinkwrapped version and then Shift+ Selecting the other low poly. Then go to the shapekeys panel and hit the downward arrow icon, and from the popup list hit “join as Shapes”. You will hopefully then have one shapekey transfered. Just do that again and again until you want to stop.
It will propably take a very long time and not have very good results, so I’m sure there must be a better way… Good luck.
Ah that’s an interesting way to do it. Makes sense, despite the tedium that will be shrinkwrapping about 25 shape keys. Ha! Good luck indeed! I guess that confirms that there’s no real new methods unless anyone else chimes in. Thanks for your idea!
I guess that confirms that there’s no real new methods unless anyone else chimes in. Thanks for your idea!