I do think the polygon detail is a bit low in your examples, resulting in loss of definition. I’d suggest to crank up the default amount of polygons a little, and make the detail proportional to the mesh size.
Here it is.
Double the resolution of before:
Interesting. In the new version with more polygon detail I prefer the one with triangle dead-ends. Maybe the quad method is more suitable for organic meshes and the other one more suitable for hard-surface remeshing?
That’s what I thought but I had to confirm if the triangle mode is ok, I’m stil deciding which should be default in the next version, there are many users of this addon that just try the defaut settings and expect the best results, If I could get near to an better average of settings that make everyone happier would be better.
Well, with subdivides it acts pretty much the same in both cases
I think triangle one could be default one since it just looks a bit more precise.
Are the latest updates accessible to all buyers of the add-on?
nah, I’ve just download latest tests from Sketchfab and subdivided it 4 or so times.
it’s in this post: Tesselator Quad-Remesher
The latest versions were rewritten from scratch, so its just a prototype yet, its not ready for be released, I didn’t have even implemented the UI yet.
No problem, you should take the time you need to improve the add-on before publishing an update. I was just curious how @ostapblender could subdivide the latest test meshes, but now I understand how.
Please, add an ability to “union” mesh islands with remeshing.
It`s the huge benefit, usefull in many cases (imho)
That’d be great indeed. It would turn Tesselator into a useful companion or even alternative to OpenVDB Remesh.
Well, I could do that with a few booleans but it would require the model to be solid and manifold, I am just afraid of it making the add-on even slower, also it wouldnt get rid of self-intersecting geometry.
Honestly working with either of them looks like choosing between malaria and cholera, but if you put a gun to my head I’d pick the one on the right.
this request is exactly to avoid making mesh purely manifold and using booleans… i was hoping retesselation can skip problematic places (for booleans) - by just setting new surface with overall shape, even loosing the details.
closing all the gaps and accidental intersections just to make boolean works - is a huge waste of time always, union via remesh is a possible way to avoid it.
well, I’ve added a few checks to avoid and correct holes and misconnections on the mesh but for example. Would be impossible to remesh something like this:
No problem. There’s OpenVDB Remesh to turn anything into a single manifold mesh, then Tesselator can improve the topology flow.
Starting to work on the UI.
I just want feedback on the design, the options need to be fairly intuitive, and I am not verry good at naming options.
I think this looks quite OK.
To me, far more important than understandable function names are explanatory tooltips, offering useful info like “Higher values = slower but better quality”, or “This method is usually better for organic shapes”.
OK, but what about the Field smoothing rounds?
is it easy to grasp what this means?
This setting is by far the one that most affect the result.
I think most people don’t have an idea what it is unless they follow this thread mabye.
But to get that clear at first sight is not possible I think.
Like @Metin_Seven said: explanatory tooltips.
I’d like to add: is it possible to show a button to documentation in the preferences, or otherwise in the addon. It happens quite a lot that I have to look for documentation of an addon on the internet (Have loads of addons already, and my n-panel has such small tabs now that they are unreadable).