as i said im over indulged in Rhino over a decade in fact Quadremesher is the key factor and connector between 3d software s in order to import & export models in a proper way… i believe their code isnt in capable and proper way! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWflWTiOBhw this one is for 2019. just enjoy it.
Uh only for some users for some purposes. I use this tool some some, but the reaction of most actual users is probably “Uh cool I guess, whatever it’s for.”
Ok so now what do you want? You’re just complaining about something you have no control over, can’t do anything about, and aren’t offering any solution to…so what would you like to have happen?
i put the links here about Z remesher & retopology in order to show and remind the developers of Q.R that’s NT new feature so they can take a look how its possible and make the effort at least just like them. because it seems their code couldn’t even detect hard edge in a proper way in the first step, as a result models get deformed.
You really think you’re showing the developers something they don’t know about? That you somehow have given them insight into a software they’ve never heard of or used? What is it that you don’t understand about the fact that this is just a first step, that there very well may be progress in the future in a way that is different and possibly better than what is in 3D Max or zBrush.
As the creator if this thread, I’d like to see it closed now. This is going nowhere productive.
Like I always say:
Love,
G
4 Likes
Rhino’s Quadremesh is a good place to start, but you need to look further.
3d Sudio Max’s “Reform” is really powerful. The algorithm of he allows not to sacrifice details with low number of faces.
The lion model is great! with quadremesh you need 2 million polygons (and the details are not the best); with Reform 154K of polygon are enough and the details are really convincing.
We need to work better in this sense …
Hi, here is my contribution trying to be constructive.
First, I don’t know the source of that comparison image showing the 2 million quads but from what I know I would say it is - at least - deceiving.
That level of (low) detail can be achieved with much less than 2 million polys.
(I have the file if someone wants to check ;-))
Secondly: it looks like there are two main differences/limitations in the way Rhino’s QuadRemesh handles the conversion:
1 - the average edge size is quite constant: even checking the adaptive size option and setting it to the max (I even tried more than 100%) it looks like the command tends to create a uniform grid: this is obviously at the expense of the details, because - for example - a very high number of quads are used to represent low-detail areas like the basement - where a lower resolution would be sufficient.
Note: this is however not always bad: the fact that the grid is more regular allows to reduce/minimize the number of star points: if you put this into an industrial design perspective, and put the SubDs into the equation, this means that the converted mesh has a cleaner topology, cleaner curvature graph (G2 everywhere except star points) and - if converted to nurbs - produces a lower number of individual surfaces.
A workaround for this - where it is possible - is to separate parts like the basement from the actual lion.
In this way you don’t have to “waste” polygons on low detail areas.
Obviously, having an option for a more effective adaptive edge length would be very good.
2 - the original geometry is smoothed. The resulting mesh does not follow closely the original gemetry, even when the resolution would be enough to do it.
To prove this, if you “shrinkwrap” the converted mesh on the original one, a good amount of detail can be recovered - even if at the expense of the grid uniformity.
In these images I applied a Grasshopper definition which takes into accoutn the original mesh geometry and normals, and takes less than 5 seconds for a 320K quads mesh.
This type operation could be integrated in the QuadRemesh command as an option without many problems - I think.
By the way, the old CreateQuadMesh command in Rhino 6 (which if I remember correctly was the first iteration of QuadRemesh) had an option called “Pull to original” which I think did exactly that.
Again, the fact that the final mesh is smooother is not always a bad thing. For a design-focused application I think sometimes it is better this way: it can overcome some scanning artifacts or mesh inaccuracies and produce am more manageable result.
However having an option for being more faithful to the original shapewould be a very welcome addition.
5 Likes
That would make Quadremesh so much more powerful!
Any chance this could be implemented (@pascal)?
2 Likes
Hi all - I take it this means the quad mesh vertices are pulled to the input object, correct?
RH-62757 Quadremesh: Pull to original
-Pascal
1 Like
I think that’s what they mean. I have a question about that Pascal: The current pull command only pulls in faceted mode correct? Or if you have a SubD can you mate it pull so the smooth surface is the one touching the pulling surface?
G
Yes, ideally optimized for minimum deviation of the pulled object (subD or regular mesh) to the input object.
Hi Gustavo - SubD edit points (EditPtOn) and vertices can be pulled. Does that do what you are asking?
-Pascal
Generally speaking, yes.
What I actually did in the example was to move the mesh vertices with an adjustable combination of two vectors: one towards the original mesh (the actual pull), one along the quad mesh normals: in this way the topology is preserved more which works when the original mesh has very intricate shapes (like the lion’s mane in the example).
But I understand this level of detail is probably too much for a standard command, so having a simple pull to original option would be a good solution, in my opinion.
1 Like
By the way, thanks for creating that request, Pascal.
1 Like
“I would say it is - at least - deceiving.” REALLY?! 
there for this one should be CGI only in u r opinion perhaps. From Scanned Mesh to Final Shot with 3ds Max - YouTube any way, i know Rhino guyz can do their best in order to improve this feature like the whole APP
1 Like