Hi :)

I am helping my daugther to learn to model and we ran into a need that I never had before... we need to convert a mesh that is formed by squared polys into the same but with diagonal crossing cuts... so all the mesh must be compouind by triangles. I have an app for making a simple triangulation but it leaves the mesh divided in 2 symmetrical parts with the triangles oriented as in a mirror. We need some kind of "double triangulation" and not this... can somebody helps us or tell us what progs/software can do different triangulations or subdivisions?

thanks!!!!!!

fabi

I think MeshLab might do that for ya Fabi ;).

Laurie

http://sourceforge.net/projects/remesh/

Might take a look at this one as well ;).

Laurie

What software can you use?

In modo there is a command for that and in Blender too, you can convert a mesh to triangles without splitting it.

well got the MeshLab... something is bad with me I think LOL... cannot get my silly mesh doing nothing there LOL

Blender is free and it has a triangulation modifier. It also has and adjustable decimate modfier.

I think Blender may be the way to go (I never could figure out MeshLab...always found it incomprehensible ;)).

Laurie

yes Laurie, is like chinese LOL... Blender, got it, yes, but you see, when you are so used to your fav progs, to learn others is just annoying... will try it :)

Here is the quick guide on how to triangulate in Blender:

• Import your OBJ model from the File | Import menu

• Press A to unselect all objects in the scene

• Right click on the model to select it

• Press TAB to go in edit mode

• Press Ctrl-F to call the Face menu

• Select Triangulate Faces

• Done!

• Press TAB again to finish edit mode

• Use File | Export to export your triangulated OBJ

Hope this helps.

You could always try this:

Open OBJ in Poser

Save as 3DS

New Poser and open your 3DS object. It will be triangulated. If you resave as an OBJ the triangles remain in the new OBJ.

Simple and free. I do this to triangulate quad meshes for use in the cloth room.

pdg

Great, thank you!!!!

Did it, and it does the same than the proggy I have...

will show what is what I need in the image:

As far as I know, I haven´t found any prog that makes this... that is what I need, but not sure how can be done unless editing each poly and cutting it by hand.

Here I've applied it to one face on this smoothed cube so you can see it's an X ;).

Laurie

excellent... I have it, opened now, I have the mesh and found the command... and is done... but not sure idf I am doing something bad... the uvs are lost :S the object was mapped and now after the subdivision is not mapped anymore...

awww...that stinks :(

Laurie

That is correct. As you create new vertices the old UV map doesn't match anymore. You need to re-UV map the model based on the new geometry.

You can triangulate from quads in this fashion in Carrara; Model:Tesselate:Vertex to center...

Dang!!!! when I do subdivision in the normal way, I mean, doing 4 squares from one, the uvs are preserved, at least on Anim8or that is what I use all the time... I will have to remember this for the next time, map the thing after the subdivision and not before... weird!!!!!

thanks to all, now I know how to do it...

oops cross post with Laurie...

The triangulation/subdivide tool in the Poser Tool Box preserves UV's, groups and materials.

http://www.philc.net/PTB_page2.php#geometryTools

Quote - will show what is what I need in the image:

UVMapper Pro does this, and also preserves the mapping.  

Phil: will check it now, thanks :)

EnglishBob: I had about 4 intents to contact the owner of UVMapper pro for to buy the program and never got an answer... I keep using the Classic just because that... do you know the owner, maybe can you help me to contact him?????

Don't think there is much support for UVMapper Pro anymore... Probably the best bet would be a workflow through a modeler that has these geometry functions and also has a diverse UV'ing tool set.

I would recommend Blender but the interface, coordinate system, and need to learn a million keyed shortcuts is daunting (at least, last time I checked).

Hex, which you seem to have, is another Route. Although, depending on which version you are using has some serious stability issues.

Silo is pretty good, from what I hear. BUT, development for this app seems to have fallen off.

Then you get into the more pricey software packages...

I personally like a combination of Wings3d and Carrara for modeling and mapping, depending on what I'm doing. I also use UVMapper classic for alot of things.

I figured out how to do what ya want in Blender'. Hit tab to go into edit mode. select all the faces (a key). On the side bar scroll down untill you find extrude individual. Hit the extrude button but don't move faces. Scoll down a bit and hit merge and select collapse on the menu it brings up. That should do it.

In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

She didn't ask about topology. She asked about performing a specific function. Don't assume we do not know what good topology is.

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

OK ,what's the reason ?

Quote - > Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.

So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

You can try PoseRay.

https://sites.google.com/site/poseray/

Load the obj, go to obj output tab, and export using a different name. All models read into the program are automatically split into triangles. UVs are kept. 

good luck,

FlyerX

Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

 

Quote - > Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.

So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

I really have no idea. It's not my project and I'm not privy to the information. Why do you care? Is she making it for you? Right.

Laurie

Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.So you all are learning bad topology.I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

Quote - I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.Laurie

Quote - I really have no idea. It's not my project and I'm not privy to the information. Why do you care? Is she making it for you? Right.Laurie

I'm for ever learning to be a better CGI Artist by other CGI Artist.
I'm just trying to be helpful.

Well, they could be making something dynamic. Triangles work better for that. And the more pivot points (vertices) the better. Could be her preferred way for dynamic cloth. Or, she could just be teaching her daughter what NOT to do (she said she was teaching her daughter). I wouldn't second guess her.

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.So you all are learning bad topology.I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

Quote - I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.Laurie

Quote - I really have no idea. It's not my project and I'm not privy to the information. Why do you care? Is she making it for you? Right.Laurie

I'm for ever learning to be a better CGI Artist by other CGI Artist.
I'm just trying to be helpful.

then think about how you sound. seriously. you made a blanket statement which many automatically think is an aggressive move. don't be surprised if someone then slaps you for it. also your statement suggests nothing at all about being helpful at all.

Still just trying to be helpful

Lets say we made a dynamic flag
If we tri'ed the quads in to 2 tri's then that would be correct.

If we Tri'ed the flags quads by 4 and had that vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads
then when we blew wind at it.

That vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads ,would bubble.

prove it. in another thread. lets not derail this one.

Quote - Still just trying to be helpful

Lets say we made a dynamic flag
If we tri'ed the quads in to 2 tri's then that would be correct.

If we Tri'ed the flags quads by 4 and had that vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads
then when we blew wind at it.

That vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads ,would bubble.

Would bubble? In Poser? I beg to differ. LOL

Laurie

You're talking about the ridges....well....Poser will make those ANYWAY. Even when the cloth is all quads. The simulation turns the quads into triangles with a vertex in the center...just the way Fabi wanted them triangulated. It normally does better with delaunay triangles.

Laurie

Quote - EnglishBob: I had about 4 intents to contact the owner of UVMapper pro for to buy the program and never got an answer... I keep using the Classic just because that... do you know the owner, maybe can you help me to contact him?????

Steve Cox is the man you want - his user name here is ... Steve Cox. You could try a PM. He does post in the UVMapper forum sometimes - last time was in December.

http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php?Who=Steve%20Cox

As for the question of triangulating dynamic cloth, off-topic as it may be, hopefully this thread will nail that question:

Dynamic cloth - the cloth room For Compleat Dummies

This is why I know about the triangulation facilities in UVMapper, in fact. I can't get a Delaunay mesh, and the centre-vertex triangulation is the next best thing.  

What we should do is to go together and petition Snarlygribbly to include this centre-vertex triangulation in his subdivider. It really is a good compromise.

OK boys and girls, I think I owe you some explanations on why I posted this...

I must say that ALL of you have good points and are right in part LOL, this seems to be a not so common things so we should celebrate it :)

RorrKonn: Yes I know about topology :) but this is not an object where it really counts too much... actually I was showing my daugther the many ways to do a Dynamic clothing and the different ways she can make a mesh and get alternate drapings, so the topology wouldn't be so important in order that she finally will get the same piece of cloth but collided and draped over a given object.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

Laurie: I love you dahhhling :)

Quote -
RorrKonn:
If we Tri'ed the flags quads by 4 and had that vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads
then when we blew wind at it.

That vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads ,would bubble.

That's correct, gives a weird folding appearance. What was exactly what I wanted to show my daugther. We finally did the mesh using Hex and NOT mapping again untill we are sure it behaves like we want... and it didn´t caused for that center vertex... at least for THIS piece of fabric. So we now know how to do that with other meshes that we are developing and could be better with those cuts.

Quote - What we should do is to go together and petition Snarlygribbly to include this centre-vertex triangulation in his subdivider. It really is a good compromise.

That is certainly a fabulous idea and I will second it :)

EnglishBob: Thank you so much for the info, I will contact him right now :)   BTW, I take the opportunity and say you have been one of my first gurus and I still use your fantastic morphing props, all the time... so Chapeau Monsieur :)

So well... all of you have been helpfull and my girl Lucila has readed this the same as me and learnt from all you. Let me say thanks again and see you around, designers :)

fabi

Good luck Lucila ,We wish you a very prosperous CGI career

Quote - Good luck Lucila ,We wish you a very prosperous CGI career

She has a good teacher. :)

Laurie

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

Rubbish.

Parametric/Generative Design

Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

 

Quote - > Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.

So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

Um, for one, thinking OUTSIDE the "quad". 

Rethinking BIM Not everything is 4 sided. There's literally 5 good reasons I can think of offhand why you would want to triangulate a mesh; but this is POSER universe, so I digress. You realize there's at least 10 other remeshing techniques that come in handy in 3D. Not everything in 3D is intended for character animation. What about Doo-Sabin subdivision?

Quote - Um, for one, thinking OUTSIDE the "quad". 

Rethinking BIM Not everything is 4 sided. There's literally 5 good reasons I can think of offhand why you would want to triangulate a mesh; but this is POSER universe, so I digress. You realize there's at least 10 other remeshing techniques that come in handy in 3D. Not everything in 3D is intended for character animation. What about Doo-Sabin subdivision?

Some of the best CGI Artist are venders here in the Poser universe.

All the app's do not have Doo–Sabin.
Wish they did.

So it would be best to use Catmull–Clark.
Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
For character ,cars ,architecture, etc etc
Genesis is a good exsample ,D/S Studio uses or works just like Catmull–Clark.

Quote - > Quote - Um, for one, thinking OUTSIDE the "quad". 

Rethinking BIM Not everything is 4 sided. There's literally 5 good reasons I can think of offhand why you would want to triangulate a mesh; but this is POSER universe, so I digress. You realize there's at least 10 other remeshing techniques that come in handy in 3D. Not everything in 3D is intended for character animation. What about Doo-Sabin subdivision?

Some of the best CGI Artist are venders here in the Poser universe.

All the app's do not have Doo–Sabin.
Wish they did.

So it would be best to use Catmull–Clark.
Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
For character ,cars ,architecture, etc etc
Genesis is a good exsample ,D/S Studio uses or works just like Catmull–Clark.

Point is, you said there's no reason to triangulate a mesh.  Not only is there a reason, but your statement made no sense.  Again, you quote only POSE- universe examples. "Genesis", "DAZ", whatever.  Quads are definitely useful, and should be used almost always in character modeling, etc.  However, there's a LOT more to 3D and modeling than just subdivision surfaces.  A lot more.  Catmull-Clark is best for subdivision surface modeling.  That's a large, but tunneled view of modeling possibilities.  Look into Topmod, and the upcoming world of 3D printing.  You'll find a dwindling use for Catmull-Clark subdivision.

Why wish for a subdivision method that utilizes bi-quadratic uniform B-splines if you believe in ALL quads all the time?

Quote - Point is, you said there's no reason to triangulate a mesh.  Not only is there a reason, but your statement made no sense.  Again, you quote only POSE- universe examples. "Genesis", "DAZ", whatever.  Quads are definitely useful, and should be used almost always in character modeling, etc.  However, there's a LOT more to 3D and modeling than just subdivision surfaces.  A lot more.  Catmull-Clark is best for subdivision surface modeling.  That's a large, but tunneled view of modeling possibilities.  Look into Topmod, and the upcoming world of 3D printing.  You'll find a dwindling use for Catmull-Clark subdivision.

Why wish for a subdivision method that utilizes bi-quadratic uniform B-splines if you believe in ALL quads all the time?

I never said never use Tri's.I like dynamic cloths & games.
I said it's bad topology to turn a quad in to 4 Tri's with a vertice in the center of the quad.
Not my rule but The rule is
If you Tri a Quad you would turn the Quad in to 2 Tri's not 4.

When I model games meshes
I follow Game meshes Rules.
There 100% Tris.

Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
Not my rule ,Catmull–Clark rule.
I'm just following Catmull–Clark rules.

If I was modeling for Doo–Sabin.
I would follow Doo–Sabin rules.

Quote -
I never said never use Tri's.I like dynamic cloths & games.
I said it's bad topology to turn a quad in to 4 Tri's with a vertice in the center of the quad.
Not my rule but The rule is
If you Tri a Quad you would turn the Quad in to 2 Tri's not 4.

When I model games meshes
I follow Game meshes Rules.
There 100% Tris.

Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
Not my rule ,Catmull–Clark rule.
I'm just following Catmull–Clark rules.

If I was modeling for Doo–Sabin.
I would follow Doo–Sabin rules.

"In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that."

***Those are your words.  My point is, there's more going on in the world of modeling than GAMES or POSER.  Look up BIM or even 3D printing for everything from clothing to sculpture.  My point is that there's a HUGE need for triangulated mesh in the world of 3D nowadays, because 3D has expanded far beyond CGI for movies and games, and is now a huge part of fabrication and design.  What was once "bad topology" in 3D is no longer relevant in many areas of 3D modeling.  The "rules" you are playing by are only relevant in CG as it applies to the traditional world of 3d modeling (ie games and subdivision surface character modeling).  People are now using Voronoi tessellation, for example, as a means to an end so to speak, for designing an end product, like building structures, and 3D-printed clothing; things you can touch and feel, and hold in your hand.  There's now a reason to use 10 different remeshing techniques in a modeling process.  Mathematics are making a huge comeback in the world of 3D art.

Even Architecture no longer depends on traditional quad-based subdivision techniques for creating design.  Modeling has gone parametric, and it's being embraced everywhere you look.

http://www.scoop.it/t/parametric-architecture-and-design

What you are saying is fine if you're modeling for Poser, but the world of 3D isn't all about modeling a human or a car anymore.

http://www.wblut.com/

Quote - but the world of 3D isn't all about modeling a human or a car anymore.

YEAH absolutely agree on this !!!!

I even have crazy dreams of holograms flowing from small cubes or so with our models going to life and as much lifelike we want them then we need new technologies and mathemathical procedures to get those meshes realistic and interesting.

Poser is just one Universe where many of our fantasies have a playground but although I am a 110% Poser person I keep thinking that this is just one step of a very large ladder.

I used Catmull-Clark and Doo-Sabin manipulating the way the loops and rings are positioned and then making subdivisions. I must say that the modeller I used is always the same and the differences between one and other system IMHO is simply the amount of smoothing applied. Maybe my experiences have been short on this... but I have did many meshes untill now :)

About Tris and Quads: Tris are GOOD enough for some dynamic meshes, not ALL. Quads give better models for mapping but that is a rule that many times is not needed to have on account. If you will use procedurals then you don´t need super perfect mapping, that is known.

I have did dynamics with tris and quads and must say that I never am sure what type of polys I will define as final untill I do a simulation and see how it drapes. No rules at all, at least to me regarding dynamics. The only system that I really don't like and never use is Delauney. To me it always gives a crushed and strange appearance.

For other purposes, tris are commonly NOT the full taste of Poser engines. Often you can see holes when rendering, the AO settings (that are slowly being left out of the scene but still not dead) could produce weird things on the tris, and if you have the very bad luck that have a tri that is not 100% facing backwards or forward then you sure will have a crystal edge or a black spot so you will need postwork or Poser's Morph tool editing...

Yeah but this is all about Poser, I know.

As said, I dream with other worlds, just that still am here on Poser LOL.

Thanks to all for the fabulous and so interesting info and feedback :)

fabi

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?71266-Pixologic-Release-3D-Print-Exporter

Right below the cobra is 8 more links to 3D Print threads.

I've never made 3D Prints my self.
It's my understanding if you need a smooth mesh
you need to raise the polycount high.
zBrush can have a billion polycount.
 
Yes a billion
http://www.pixologic.com/zbrush/features/HDGeometry/

3D Printers are very cool.
I wouldn't mind to have some of my meshes setting around the house as statues.
Then ya would need to paint them.
unless you spend a lot of time painting all the detailed textures.
ya would just paint it like marble or something.lose all the textures.
So I'm waiting till 3D Printers can copy the mesh and the textures.
For now posters on the walls.

Not that zBrush has been famous for good topolagy.

C4D supports nGones ,zBrush does not .So you half to make sure not to import nGones in to zBrush.

Even thou V4,V5 is 100% quads.
If you use the zBrush smooth brush over top a vertice that only has 3 lines attached
to that vertice it will raise that vertice a bit higher.so you half to be careful.