Redistribute Points On a Mesh in Modeler

[MacGregg]

Is there some way to redistribute the points on a mesh to more evenly distribute them. After editing a mesh for a while I get some "bands" that are really dense and others that are rather wide is there some way to easily even these differences out and make it more homogeneous.

[bjornkn]

If it's a quad mesh you could use BandGlue to merge 2 or more "bands" together.
And the wide "bands" can be split with Bandsaw (Pro).
You could also make a new grid and fit it to the old one that you put in the background, and use MovePointOnBG or KO_Pointfit. It all depends on what/how your mesh is. The last method works even if your mesh is not made from quads.

[MacGregg]

Well, that's a rather tedious and manual process using Bandsaw or Connect and Band Glue and I don't really end up with a very clean mesh and it will mess up the mesh while I am going thru this.

I thought there must be a plug-in that can adjust the points and average out the density. It doesn't seem like this would hard to do, just slide the points along the "path", that's what I do manually. This just takes a lot of time since it needs to be done in 3 dimensions.

There just must be a better way, don't other folks have this same problem and ending up with too many polygons in one area and not enough in another?

Thanks,
MacGregg

[SplineGod]

The problem with having some plugin do that is how do you make it do it smartly? The same problem exists when using poly reduction tools. They preserve the volume pretty well but create a mess in terms of flow and where edges and points need to be.

The best way is to model cleanly while you model. A trick I use sometimes is to kill some of the polys, pick points, create splines and then spline patch new geometry in.

[meatycheesyboy]

If I'm understanding what he's asking correctly, then it wouldn't mess with flow at all.

See the attached animated gif, I think this is what he's looking for. That gif is from Polyboost, a modeling plugin for 3ds Max. In Polyboost, the feature is called SpaceLoop.

[Surrealist.]

Well, that's a rather tedious and manual process using Bandsaw or Connect and Band Glue and I don't really end up with a very clean mesh and it will mess up the mesh while I am going thru this.

I thought there must be a plug-in that can adjust the points and average out the density. It doesn't seem like this would hard to do, just slide the points along the "path", that's what I do manually. This just takes a lot of time since it needs to be done in 3 dimensions.

There just must be a better way, don't other folks have this same problem and ending up with too many polygons in one area and not enough in another?

Thanks,
MacGregg

You are doing subdivision modeling I assume?

This can happen often. I have learned to reduce things and even them out as I go. So when I come to an area that gets dense I try to re-direct the flow of polygons. Very often I will re direct things and eliminate 3 bands of polygons. This is something I plan as I go so things don't become too dense.

Even then there is need to smooth things out. There is the Smooth tool [Shift m] with a power of 1 and iterations of around 4 or 5. That can help with some things. I use that a lot with organic modeling.

Then there is this plugin (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69685&highlight=edge) which might help you for some things.

Come on over to the Subdivision Modeling Workshop (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69685&highlight=edge) and share your wires. :)

[MacGregg]

If I'm understanding what he's asking correctly, then it wouldn't mess with flow at all.

See the attached animated gif, I think this is what he's looking for. That gif is from Polyboost, a modeling plugin for 3ds Max. In Polyboost, the feature is called SpaceLoop.

You got the idea, that is what I am trying to do. And I don't think this will mess up the mesh. It will reduce the poly count in some LOCAL areas but over all the poly count remains the same just redistributed. It wont affect the flow either since you are not changing any connections just stretching it out in dense areas, so it does change the mesh shape in some areas and it could cause a character to be altered in a bad way, but if that is the case then don't do it. And the best way for this command to work would be to let you select a subsection of the mesh so you have control over how much is affected. I just think there many cases where this would reduce my work when trying to clean up a mesh.

Surrealist, I have not tried the EdgeSlide plugin yet, but this sounds like it might do what I want in a more manual way.

Thanks,
MacGregg

[Surrealist.]

Cool. There is also an Align and Distribute (http://www.artssphere.com/plugins/alignanddistribute.php) Plugin. And Line up Points (http://www.artssphere.com/plugins/lineuppoints.php).

[Surrealist.]

The EQ version of Line up Points works on a line of points. That was the one I was looking for. Align and distribute is a very handy tool for lining up meshes.

[meatycheesyboy]

I think the problem with Line Up Points is that it only redistributes on a straight line. If it redistributed on a curved surface, I think it would be very close to what the OP is looking for.

[Surrealist.]

Yeah that would be nice. Just introducing other available tools to help with similar problems. In your animated gif example above (which is what made me think of it) you would have to do it on one row of points at a time but it would work - though more tedious.

[meatycheesyboy]

You're right of course, the gif above does only show it in a straight line, so you're solutions were good ones. Didn't mean to sound like I was discounting your suggestions.

[MacGregg]

Yeah that is it, basically your taking the path created by the original set of points, or even a subset of points, of some "row" or "column" and redistribute them on this established path without modifying the end path "much". :) Or probably better is to subpatch the mesh and use these points since these will be a curve instead of a series of line segments. Moving points on this subpatch curve would change it less. And you can, of course, move these points in 2 "dimensions" since all the points lie on (at least) 2 curves (paths) thru a mesh approximately 90 degrees to each other. I think this would go a long way to cleaning up a mesh and make it easier to "see" what you have.

Maybe an even fancier method would be to add a weight map to let you have control over how the points get distributed. This is totally different from my original intent, but a map of all points 0 would give the same result, though you would need 2 weight maps to have complete control of "row" and "column" redistribute... this may be making it too complicated though from the original idea.

Cheers,
MacGregg

[Surrealist.]

You're right of course, the gif above does only show it in a straight line, so you're solutions were good ones. Didn't mean to sound like I was discounting your suggestions.

No problem. And Mac Gregg, you can also go to the feature request section and add this there if you want.

I mentioned the smooth tool. In a way this tool sort of does what you want only in 3 dimensions instead of just 2. I use it a lot for organic modeling. You can select sections of your mesh and use it.

[art]

Yeah that is it, basically your taking the path created by the original set of points, or even a subset of points, of some "row" or "column" and redistribute them on this established path without modifying the end path "much". :) Or probably better is to subpatch the mesh and use these points since these will be a curve instead of a series of line segments. Moving points on this subpatch curve would change it less.
I am not sure how easy or difficult it would be to get equations of the curves created by subpatches. Moving points on a standard curve (as created by LW's "make curve") would be much easier. In either case the resulting geometry would probably change, as shown on the attached images. Green points/light curves are original, red/dark are after movement (I did this by hand, the spacing is not exact).

[MacGregg]

Yes you're right Art, they will change the mesh to some degree. With relatively large polygons though you are only creating only a rough mesh that is not terribly accurate anyway, the denser the mesh the smaller the "error". Chances are you wont care about small changes to the mesh. I also think that you could apply this "Filter" to just part of the Band thus localizing the changes to these areas. You then get to use your brain to decide where homogenizing the mesh would be best applied and have little evil effect on your mesh, that you would care about anyway. It would also be far less of a change than subpatching causes anyway. I certainly believe there is a point in Mesh development where you would stop using this command when it would more damage than good.

The idea is you are still Editing the mesh and if you don't like the result there is always ctrl-z. :)

Cheers,
MacGregg

[bjornkn]

How about showing us the mesh?
I think the method to choose would be very dependent on what type of mesh you have? And whether it's a quad mesh, SubD or whatever?

[Surrealist.]

Also weather it is supposed to be a hard surface model or an organic object.

And if it is subd, don't make your mesh dense. Good polyflow, simple easy lines. Editing should not be a chore. Also don't overlook the smooth tool (shft m). Power of 1 iterations of about 4 or 5.

But all that said, I still think a tool like that would be cool.

[MacGregg]

Yes Surrealist, your smooth tool method with setting of 1.0 Strength and 4 or 5 Iterations is/was very helpful in fact I even went to 15 or more Iterations at times. I was not using this tool in the best way because it would often add distortion if raised the strength too high and I often did set it 3.0.

Another really useful Plugin bjornkn mentioned here is KO_POINTFIT. This is a great plugin, though it could be even better with a little work. It is a Super version of BG_Confrom and BG_Conform_Plus. It just, so far, seems to work... better with some more very useful features.

I am trying to create an organic model of an "evil clown" like head, though he doesn't look too evil yet :). But, often when I am modeling organic objects I get some areas that are too dense. I may not be getting the flow right because I am increasing the density in an area that I need it but the flow continues out to other areas of the mesh that don't need the detail. So, I probably need to rethink the flow a bit.

meatycheesyboy's gif is what I had but in both h and v of the mesh and what the original question was about. I have improved the flow much more since this started.

Still very much in progress.

Thanks & Cheers All,
MacGregg

[Surrealist.]

Yeah, you have about 10 times more edges than you need for that head.

I love the design of it. You want to bring that as a project over to the SubD workshop? (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83878)I would love to get a head model going over there. We could get you going with some good polyflow ideas that will get that guy going real nice.

Since I now know you are working on a head, there is another tool that will help you. Have you ever used the point radial fall off tool? That is basically Drag Net. What you do is you can adjust the influence interactive with the right mouse button. A little blue circle will show you the fall off range. This little tool is a hidden treasure. You can use it to move around wholesale areas of mesh without disturbing the geometry basic shape within the center. Then you can adjust the size of it to make more specific changes or even zoom it down to the point level and drag. You can use it basically as a sculpting tool. You can rearrange a whole face in a matter or minutes.

http://www.lightwiki.com/images/e/e4/Hood13.gif

[MacGregg]

Yes, I use Drag Net with the Point Radial falloff all the time, it is a great tool and the only way to work on a Mesh. It is like the Drag Tool but you get to expand it to just how many points you want move and with a nice scaled transition.

All though, on the other hand, I find most other variants of the Drag Net tool near useless since setting up the bounding box is so counter intuitive. Maybe they have some specific value, but I can't figure it out.

I checked out your tutorials on polyflow.... wow! You really have control. Looks like you can block off areas of detail from areas of low detail. Seems like you really know how lw behaves. Your polygon flows are works of art in themselves!

So what's this SubD Workshop? (Oh, great webcam... 100 layers, really? Guess that would help reduce polycount.) How does the workshop work? I have tried to remove polygons from my head model, seems like it might be better to start over then try to reduce the polycount down to the levels you're getting.

What's the best way to add a row of polygons to the mesh, the only way I have found is to select the points hit Extender Plus then Drag which is very bad and no control. There just doesn't seem to be an efficient mesh growing tool. The obvious ones don't work on edges or points like Extrude, Smooth Shift or MultiShift or even Create Row.

Thanks,
MacGregg

[Surrealist.]

Cool. Glad you are into Dragnet.

Thanks for the comments on my wires. The Subdivision Modeling Workshop is just an idea. I enjoy working out problems with subds. I like to invite other peoples methods and techniques. It is good to see and learn from. Also I would like to find a way to bring the concept of simple polyflow home to people. I thought this might be a good way to do it. And keep it all in one thread instead of all over the place like it is now with the examples I have uploaded so far.

All you have to do is make a post in that thread with whatever it is you want to know and hopefully you'll get some good responses.

The 100 layers of the Webcam is because I preserved the steps I took to make it in 100 or more layers. You are free to download it and ask any questions.

I am going to paste your other questions over there if you don't mind, because they are good ones and I would like include it in that thread.

I will answer there. :)

[MacGregg]

Sure, that would be fine.

[Surrealist.]

OK, will do. :)