My vote goes to cleaner, better subdividable topology.
Well, if topology is good, form is preserved and there’s no need in manual tweaking, you don’t need to artificially increase density in the specific areas, as I see it. So yeah, topology is the priority. And less ‘knots’ would be nice.
I’d prefer cleaner topology, but I believe the answer to that is a better algorithm, not postprocessing. So if you’re going to work only on one or the other, I’d vote for density masking.
I’ve written a brief comparative review for my blog. (spoiler: Tesselator wins )
Oh, nice, cool.
I was trying to understand the quadriflow’s paper and it mostly reviews instant meshes and then present an algorithm for removing singularities from the position field using graph theory.
Ignoring all the algebra I guess that this picture is saying is something like:
Maybe I might be not so wrong about a post processing algorithm.
I am working on a new tool now, using some parts of the algorithm for tesselating the particles, I intended to make a semi-automatic retopology tool since the beginning but have lost myself in the automatic adventure lol.
anyway, what if you placed the particles manually, even if a manual process I took 3 min to retopo a hand, a decent time, I guess.
We can let the boring stuff like tesselating edges for the computer
jeez, that’s almost perfect! well, except that area on a wrist
Quite nice indeed, but it still needs a lot of manual topology planning and placement of guides, which is what a lazy-ass modeler like me loves to skip.
Yeah, its a fast process compared to other means but requires some amount of thinking. anyway its faster than poly by poly and better than full-atutomatic retopo.
this is a great idea, continue like that
Why not putting the two methods -the fully automatic and the semi automatic- as two options in the add-on, so that the user may choose the best solution according to his workflow needs? In the case he needs a more rough result he can use the fully automatic option and in the case he needs a more precise result he can use the semi automatic one.
that’s what I thought!
Nice looking ! Any plan to make it available on Gumroad ?
Not yet but probably I will look into, Its hard to keep track of both and keep them synchronized with updates and change logs.
New prototype of a tool for the addon, I dont know if thats really usefull, but I pretend to use part of the code of the Vector Field solver to detect the intention of the user in a smarter way.
I would definetely buy, if it can create symmetry like Zbrush remesher can. Cutting it in half then mirroring is not real symmetry in that way. A centerline without crazy amount of slicing artifcats is what I personally would call good symmetry froma remesher.
Hi, any plan to use a low poly predefined mesh as input for particles ?