OMG!! MD garment with decent quad mesh!
anomalaus last edited by
@F_Verbaas I'm adding this reply since I didn't ever intend my responses to producing a quad mesh within MD as being totally negative. I think it's absolutely terrific that the program can produce a mesh that will most certainly perform better within Poser than a pure tri-mesh, especially with dynamics. Everything else is just nit-picking, in the sense of running through my mental checklist for good Poser figure design and noting that symmetry breaking makes it harder to develop morphs. :-)
Miss B last edited by
@anomalaus Well I never UV unwrapped in MD when I've used it. I export to OBJ, and import to Blender, my preference for UV unwrapping. What that looks like is how the pieces were actually created, but FVerbaas would have to specify if that's how the pieces are laid out as he created them.
Miss B last edited by
@anomalaus Oh being able to create a Quad-based mesh is a plus, especially since the old MD3 I've used didn't have that ability, and I'm not crazy about converting Tris to Quads in Blender, so I usually import into ZBrush and use ZRemesher, which does a wonderful job of the conversion.
I happen to be much happier working with Quads than Tris, so adding the ability to export to Quads in MD is a vast improvement.
fverbaas last edited by fverbaas
Good to hear you all agree about the quad mesh. That was what the post is about.
A few notes: some of you commented on the number of panels. The project at hand required close body fit for all but the under-bust area and as little strain as practical. It is not a 'dress' and indeed for actual garment one could merge some parts together and straighten up edges, but at the expense of extra strain. The present split was a compromise. The body, arms and legs are standard kimono cut. The neck and head head are developed for the project.
About symmetry: If one needs symmetry in a computer model you should build one side only and mirror it. MD does not (yet) offer a 'pin vertex at x=0.0', so I used standard symmetric copy editing instead. Mesh symmetry is not a requirement for my project.
I will add a few shots later on.
F_Verbaas last edited by
Do not look at the chest. I added a lot of crssing lines there I need for my project.
Having a quad option in MD is good & very useful for some tasks, but I have to say (based on my understanding & experience) that triangulated meshes will perform better than quad meshes when used as dynamic cloth because triangular polygons are always co-planar i.e. all vertices are in the same geometric plane.
A regular quad mesh is great for something that deforms in specific ways at specific locations like a figure, but cloth has to be highly non-specific - & when you deform a quad mesh against its edge flow some of the polygons will become non-planar resulting in jagged sawtooth artefacts (how noticeable depends on the polygon density), Then the options are to smooth the mesh (losing detail) or to reduce visibility of the problem using subdivision.
@fverbaas - MD has done a pretty good job for an auto solution, though my preference would be to do some cleanup work to reduce the amount of poles. I don't see any spirals which has been a shortcoming with Zbrush's Zremesher auto retopo function. Does MD maintain an even number of vertices around the boundaries? (Keeping to even numbers is one of the key lessons I’ve learned in modelling.)
Quads are very good for general modeling but tris are better at dynamics.
That being said, and these are my personal opinions:
- As soon as symmetry is lost, the obj file is lost.
- Always, and I repeat always, and let me underline always once more. . . For most if not ALL 3D object files, try to get as few seams as possible.
So sorry to say, but both of the above rules are violated by the app, and if I look at the way the cutting-up is done, I am again so sorry to say : Thank you, but no.
It would be very weird to have symmetrical folds in clothing.
So I don't have a problem with that the MD OBJ output isn't symmetrical.
But I do agree for Dynamics Triangle Polygons give a much better flow in the simulation then Quads.
F_Verbaas last edited by F_Verbaas
I agree it would be good to have a pin to x=0.0 option and a 'save as symmetric copy' option. That should not be too difficult to make by the way.
But were me, me and, again, me violating your Rule 2 Tony. We conspired and we committed it all three us us. Flagrantly!
You cannot blame MD for that.
F_Verbaas last edited by
I do not know the secrets of MD. The koreans are not very talkative.
If you want something filled with 4-sided facets, starting with an odd number of vertices would not help.
I am with you on most other things. quads are much more 'pre-determined' in their bending than tris. I tend to use quads only for elements with a predefined bending like straps and belts. when you model these with tris the suface gets wobbly.