PDA

View Full Version : Slow BandGlue



fazi69
10-17-2018, 02:43 AM
I`m trying 2018, fooling around in modeler and noticed that Bandglue if painfully slow. Stripe with 200 polygons take more than minute !!! Is it "normal" in 2018 ? And why it is switching from polygons to edges every time ??!?! (after bandglueing)

erikals
10-17-2018, 03:12 AM
yep, super-slow.

once Modeler has a re-write it will be fixed.

try, dissolve loop, still slow, but might be faster.

mav3rick
10-17-2018, 03:17 AM
at least bandglue start to support symmetry.. actually i think it is clear loop masked into bandglue as it acts like edge delete once executed it automaticly switch selection to edges

Lewis
10-17-2018, 05:51 AM
It's been reported to the NT, there is still open case so they know it :).

Sensei
10-17-2018, 09:59 AM
I`m trying 2018, fooling around in modeler and noticed that Bandglue if painfully slow. Stripe with 200 polygons take more than minute !!! Is it "normal" in 2018 ? And why it is switching from polygons to edges every time ??!?! (after bandglueing)

You can always get SwiftEdgeLoop (http://www2.trueart.pl/?URIType=Directory&URI=Products/Plug-Ins/SwiftEdgeLoop).. ;)

gar26lw
10-17-2018, 10:10 AM
yep, super-slow.

once Modeler has a re-write it will be fixed.

try, dissolve loop, still slow, but might be faster.

erm, no, it just need to be like 2015

erikals
10-17-2018, 10:17 AM
erm, yes!

the speed is cringy. a rewrite is needed. this goes for a dozen other tools as well.


https://youtu.be/dRcIv9SiZl8

Sensei
10-17-2018, 10:43 AM
Bandglue was written in really old times. In LW v9.0 there has been added edge functions to SDK. In older times tool/plugin had to analyze entire mesh to find edge loop. After adding edge functions, analyze of entire mesh is no longer needed.

erikals
10-17-2018, 10:55 AM
anyway, it will be interesting to see what NewTek will do in this regard.

https://i.imgur.com/5iDKqDX.gif

prometheus
10-17-2018, 01:47 PM
yep, super-slow.

once Modeler has a re-write it will be fixed.

try, dissolve loop, still slow, but might be faster.

Dissolve loop and dissolve or delete and edge seem to be much much slower than bandglue, so that is the opposite of what you think.
And band glue isnīt really edge dissolve like in houdini.

Try detail, edit edges and shift click on any edge loop to delete it, it will be deleted faster than dissolve loop, not sure if it is faster than bandglue, will have to test on a denser object.

We need the proper polyamount statistics of any test object...whatīs the poly count in yours?

erikals
10-17-2018, 02:03 PM
Dissolve loop and dissolve or delete and edge seem to be much much slower than bandglue, so that is the opposite of what you think.
And band glue isnīt really edge dissolve like in houdini.

Try detail, edit edges and shift click on any edge loop to delete it, it will be deleted faster than dissolve loop, not sure if it is faster than bandglue, will have to test on a denser object.

you're right, i mixed these up, been a long time, so totally forgot. you're 100% correct.

i should know, made a video on it... :o


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziqq6oodGoI



We need the proper polyamount statistics of any test object...whatīs the poly count in yours?
1500x1500 segments

erikals
10-17-2018, 02:05 PM
tried the same in Blender 2.77 and 2.8... surprisingly Blender came to a halt.

it wouldn't crunch it until i lowered the segments to 500x500


https://youtu.be/LFDdXU72JdU

prometheus
10-17-2018, 02:11 PM
you're right, i mixed these up, been a long time, so totally forgot. you're 100% correct.

i should know, made a video on it... :o





1500x1500 segments

It just shows you are at least not a brat :)



tried the same in Blender 2.77 and 2.8... surprisingly Blender came to a halt.

it wouldn't crunch it until i lowered the segments to 500x500



That is one of the major issues in blender, Lightwave actually deals better with displacements and denser polys than blender, with one exception..and that is when you enter sculpt mode in blender..which is a bit optimized, and modifiying topology with sculpt tools is much faster than some modify tools in Lightwave, but as once as you go in to edit mode only in blender...not so fast.

erikals
10-17-2018, 02:28 PM
It just shows you are at least not a brat :)
Thanks, i try  https://i.imgur.com/tJGL61i.png


That is one of the major issues in blender, Lightwave actually deals better with displacements and denser polys than blender, with one exception..and that is when you enter sculpt mode in blender..which is a bit optimized, and modifiying topology with sculpt tools is much faster than some modify tools in Lightwave, but as once as you go in to edit mode only in blender...not so fast.
yes, almost as if Blender is using two different mesh engines or something. 

(i'm no Pro though, so have absolutely no idea how programmers would go about it... :)

Rayek
12-06-2018, 02:19 PM
tried the same in Blender 2.77 and 2.8... surprisingly Blender came to a halt.

it wouldn't crunch it until i lowered the segments to 500x500


https://youtu.be/LFDdXU72JdU

It's the fault of the algorithm used to generate a sphere in Blender's sphere generator code. I compared with the extra meshes addon which includes a quadsphere, and used 600 divisions, resulting in a 2.160.002 faces sphere, which is on par with your 1500x1500 sphere in regards to polygon count. It took ~8 seconds on my aging machine to generate.

Trying to achieve a 1500x1500 sphere with the regular sphere object will take forever: as far as I can tell, it's looping through the whole lot again and again and again, grinding down to a halt. The code is open source of course, but I did not bother to look. The abysmal performance of the regular sphere object generator code is obvious when compared to the extra meshes addon's quadsphere, which I believe to be more calculation intensive in the first place.

I think it's a legacy thing: no-one bothered to write a performant sphere generation algorithm in the past because who would ever need such a high-poly sphere? And the code never got replaced by a more efficient one.

erikals
12-06-2018, 02:48 PM
yes, was just a bit perplexed that it was slower.

would be interesting to compare general LW vs Blender speed one day, but i know many users would complain about such a test, so, will skip it.
would also take way too long to make such a test video. (might compare some simple stuff in the future though)

we'll see, bit tired of making LW videos these days.