[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Matt, I apologize, the last part of my previous message was a reply to personal message by Nick, it is very late here - so mistakes but nonetheless few hints http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?213772-One-intresting-bug-in-current-game-engine-hope-somehow-it-gets-resolved Bart Crouch bridge script to stitch meshes ( it might be needed in code used by Nick and not so with rohith approach - as the one will preserve the out vertices and they could still be merged relatively easily) Blender is capable to cut on vertexes ( cut tools ) ,and also merge meshes ( hints to make merging better in this special situation is possible but not necessary ) so cutting on vertices - the simplified submesh - submit it to mentioned ( ready ) code and then bring it back - is possible. There could be problems - but it is SoC is all about - to solve problems. the result will be really what artists want from pencil tool. Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Matt, >So students, if your proposal is mathematically or algorithmically >complicated that's great, but you shouldn't feel discourages if it's >not, as either can be challenging in their own way and can both make >acceptable GSOC projects. there is nothing difficult to implement - there is already working code. the implementation will just interface with ready parts. >Might be best to move the >discussion to private mail, and let the bf-committers thread go back >on topic. maybe but one question - let us select a huge part of mesh 'cut' it and feed to algo you implemented will it handle it? I think so, maybe a 'hole' will be filled - but again - Blender has a code to bring two meshes together ( more there are hints what to bring together ). the same goes for rohith approach - but here is even better - the cut area will be prevented, so to merge simplified mesh will be even easier in final there is what is pen is about. To outline area and to simplify it. And it is all within reach of SoC application. and of cause - there is no intentional heat other than - it would be better within give range of possibilities to have better outcomes. And if it discourages students - is a question. Really. They are not made of paper. Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: Alice's thread has already veered way off-topic and I hate to derail it even further, but I feel the need to comment on this for the sake of other students that may be reading: > the applicant must win an application so it should be interesting and > not trivial. This is true, but it doesn't mean that a GSOC proposal must do complicated things or use complex algorithms internally. It's often better for blender to have really well thought out and well crafted simple tools that work really nicely and are achievable in the scope of the gsoc, than it is to attempt to make complicated intensive tools that a) may not even get finished over the summer and/or b) may not be that useful in real world conditions. I don't mean to make a false dichotomy, but designing and creating simple, useful, tools that people love to use can easily be as much work as implementing a complicated algorithm, and can often be more productive for artists in the end. So students, if your proposal is mathematically or algorithmically complicated that's great, but you shouldn't feel discourages if it's not, as either can be challenging in their own way and can both make acceptable GSOC projects. cheers Matt ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Tom, >A common method for retopology is over sculpted meshes. You might >want to retopologize creating only a small number of polys over an >area with thousands, tens of thousands or more polys (Right now you >can do over 40 million polys in a single mutires mesh). (with a poly >budget of 150 for a simple object - 40 million/150 is about 250,000 >polys per quad of your retopo mesh) somehow there should be decision - either your script could provide that functionality or not cleary it could not - it will create relatively small patches. now Matt told that re topology will be to simplify some areas - not all the case you mention. in this case rohith approach will suffice and provide good result. now big meshes - Nick applied a patch which effectively and quickly makes remeshing over huge meshes. > Wasn't claiming to :) you was claiming that what I say is completely unappropriate and this is cleary not a case. we revealed a problem with rohith approach - only limited areas, but due to Matt note and common sence it will suffice. it could start from retopo of areas, then if good sparse matrix lib is found ( and there are such libs ) it could be extended. so the question is here - to select what is best on number of criteria. obviously you script won't handle large areas to retopo and on small meshes rohith approach has a hand - it preserves topology of mesh. > While it is true that there might be some use in extending the retopo > tools beyond the scope that was suggested for GSoC, the original > inquiry was more narrow in nature. the applicant must win an application so it should be interesting and not trivial. Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > and few words before you stated - that retopo will work on simple > submeshes - correct? A common method for retopology is over sculpted meshes. You might want to retopologize creating only a small number of polys over an area with thousands, tens of thousands or more polys (Right now you can do over 40 million polys in a single mutires mesh). (with a poly budget of 150 for a simple object - 40 million/150 is about 250,000 polys per quad of your retopo mesh) > maybe you have some knowledge - but it does not mean you know everything. Wasn't claiming to :) > or can from out hand say that algos which are specially developed for > retopo are 'unapproriate' It wasn't out of hand. I was familiar with both the target of this GSoC project, and the methods used in the projects mentioned. While it is true that there might be some use in extending the retopo tools beyond the scope that was suggested for GSoC, the original inquiry was more narrow in nature. LetterRip ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Matt, > Having extra funky automatic tools can be great too, but it's a > different thing. You still also need tools with manual control, even > if only just to clean up problems after an automatic topology > generation algorithm. So these manual tools are probably not > mathematically intense, but implementing them will require good UI and > workflow design, and working with artists to make them useful and > efficient. the point is for use cases - if somehow user selects more that very simple area then 'general' algos would be OK. but if knowledgeable members know some approaches to handle relativly different cases with said script - and it will be useable - then OK. the problem is that - though things look simple - they anyway require quite powerful tools. and of cause - it is up to applicant and SoC leader to select approach. My series of mails were just give more outlook. even if the talk was 'hot' it might be useful after all. and no need to think that if I behave like 'young' I'm young - I have more than 10 years of graphics programming experience and lead 15 people team, it is for this reason - I'm so informal - because I try to give different outlook, and it is not I'm who will decide after all. Regards Sergey On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Matt Ebb wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Sergey Kurdakov > wrote: >> all mentioned approaches was like these: take arbitrary mesh and make it >> better. >> it is developed with simple interface with mesh in - mesh out. >> >> in case you can suggest any better algos - and I provided best in >> class of retopo algos > > Hi Sergey, i think there's a bit of confusion - the point for these > tools is to have something manual and hands-on, so users can lay down > polys exactly where they want them to be. Just like normal mesh > modelling but as part of a retopo workflow. > > Having extra funky automatic tools can be great too, but it's a > different thing. You still also need tools with manual control, even > if only just to clean up problems after an automatic topology > generation algorithm. So these manual tools are probably not > mathematically intense, but implementing them will require good UI and > workflow design, and working with artists to make them useful and > efficient. > > So that's the purpose behind this wishlist item, to improve the manual > editing tools for drawing/tweaking mesh topology manually on an > existing reference surface, not to implement a fancy algorithm that > guesses and generates geometry for you. > > Matt > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Tom >" it will be really slow and will work only for fairly low poly models and few words before you stated - that retopo will work on simple submeshes - correct? then - algo, which was donated might be used as well it is fast as can be seen. so here is a question to select appropriate algo. > Didn't miss it - I just have more direct knowledge of what is going on. maybe you have some knowledge - but it does not mean you know everything. or can from out hand say that algos which are specially developed for retopo are 'unapproriate' > The use case is entirely different. This is faster manual creation of > a retopology, things are very well constrained so heavy math lifting > doesn't need to be done to find what the contours of the mesh are in > order to best align the edge loops. so again - does your script provides all useable use cases? will general algos be better in they are just 'interfaces' - Nick integrated donated code in few days - and it is already can be used with Blender. in case you can guaranty this - no problem, but the general case might be - select quite a wide area and then push - iteratively retopo it. and those algos do provide this - they are appropriate - the question - to select one which is most appropriate based on few things - including your knowledge, that rohith retopo will work on relatively simple areas ( but again - this is a case for retopo ) Regards Sergey On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Tom M wrote: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Sergey Kurdakov > wrote: > >> so you kind of big boss? > > No, Ton is the Big Boss - I'm more of a medium boss :) > >>> Rohiths code can only work on extremely simple meshes because the math >>> library he needed for accelerating the process was not integrated yet >> >> this is incorrect > > No it really is correct, me and rohith exchanged emails and chat > discussions, here is a direct quote from about a month ago, > > QUOTE > > " it will be really slow and will work only for fairly low poly models > > the reason being that I did not find a usable sparse matrix implementation" > > END QUOTE > > Anywho he is currently looking for a usable sparse matrix > implementation and has some bugs to fix. However it is irrelevant, > since it still wouldn't be appropriate for the two tasks that the > student is interested in working on (which are much simpler cases). > > >>somehow you missed it big boss, > > Didn't miss it - I just have more direct knowledge of what is going on. > >> so to use ready code - is difficult. Or Tom - maybe you can allow a >> bit of creativity? that will easily pay off. >> maybe rohith did not finish intended feature because he tired of you? > > It is great that you wanted to help a student by providing papers, it > isn't so good that you are insisting that you are correct in an > insulting manner. > >> all mentioned approaches was like these: take arbitrary mesh and make it >> better. >> it is developed with simple interface with mesh in - mesh out. > > The use case is entirely different. This is faster manual creation of > a retopology, things are very well constrained so heavy math lifting > doesn't need to be done to find what the contours of the mesh are in > order to best align the edge loops. > > LetterRip > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > all mentioned approaches was like these: take arbitrary mesh and make it > better. > it is developed with simple interface with mesh in - mesh out. > > in case you can suggest any better algos - and I provided best in > class of retopo algos Hi Sergey, i think there's a bit of confusion - the point for these tools is to have something manual and hands-on, so users can lay down polys exactly where they want them to be. Just like normal mesh modelling but as part of a retopo workflow. Having extra funky automatic tools can be great too, but it's a different thing. You still also need tools with manual control, even if only just to clean up problems after an automatic topology generation algorithm. So these manual tools are probably not mathematically intense, but implementing them will require good UI and workflow design, and working with artists to make them useful and efficient. So that's the purpose behind this wishlist item, to improve the manual editing tools for drawing/tweaking mesh topology manually on an existing reference surface, not to implement a fancy algorithm that guesses and generates geometry for you. Matt ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > so you kind of big boss? No, Ton is the Big Boss - I'm more of a medium boss :) >> Rohiths code can only work on extremely simple meshes because the math >> library he needed for accelerating the process was not integrated yet > > this is incorrect No it really is correct, me and rohith exchanged emails and chat discussions, here is a direct quote from about a month ago, QUOTE " it will be really slow and will work only for fairly low poly models the reason being that I did not find a usable sparse matrix implementation" END QUOTE Anywho he is currently looking for a usable sparse matrix implementation and has some bugs to fix. However it is irrelevant, since it still wouldn't be appropriate for the two tasks that the student is interested in working on (which are much simpler cases). >somehow you missed it big boss, Didn't miss it - I just have more direct knowledge of what is going on. > so to use ready code - is difficult. Or Tom - maybe you can allow a > bit of creativity? that will easily pay off. > maybe rohith did not finish intended feature because he tired of you? It is great that you wanted to help a student by providing papers, it isn't so good that you are insisting that you are correct in an insulting manner. > all mentioned approaches was like these: take arbitrary mesh and make it > better. > it is developed with simple interface with mesh in - mesh out. The use case is entirely different. This is faster manual creation of a retopology, things are very well constrained so heavy math lifting doesn't need to be done to find what the contours of the mesh are in order to best align the edge loops. LetterRip ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Tom. >I managed last years Google Summer of Code for blender, helped design >many of the students proposals (including helped rohith), etc. so you kind of big boss? > Rohiths code can only work on extremely simple meshes because the math > library he needed for accelerating the process was not integrated yet this is incorrect he used library http://openmesh.org/index.php?id=271#c2029 which is described in http://www.graphics.rwth-aachen.de/uploads/media/spm08_01.pdf the library is present in rohith patches ( and I compiled his code ) so it is integrated and has simple interface - somehow you missed it big boss, now as to 'usefulness' - it remeshes arbitrary mesh preserving features - so what is needed in the case of retopology > is totally inappropriate for the simple nature of the retopology tools > that are for GSoC. so to use ready code - is difficult. Or Tom - maybe you can allow a bit of creativity? that will easily pay off. maybe rohith did not finish intended feature because he tired of you? just think for a while - maybe sometimes to be more flexible pays off. > None of your suggested references provide algorithms for generating > the mesh in an appropriate manner. They are either drastically too > complicated (involving things like taking derivatives of curvature and > other fun math) or way to simple (doing scan fills that result in tris > or quads that will give ugly topology). I see that you are in charge - but all mentioned approaches was like these: take arbitrary mesh and make it better. it is developed with simple interface with mesh in - mesh out. in case you can suggest any better algos - and I provided best in class of retopo algos you are welcome. Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > Hi Tom > >>No, quad dominant remeshish is much more specialized and uses >>algorithms wholly inappropriate for what this student is working on. > > so rohith was intended to use pen to outline simplified area, after he > finished integration into blender, > and it is inappropriate - how do you know? because your first reaction > was it is wrong and you will 'press ahead' I managed last years Google Summer of Code for blender, helped design many of the students proposals (including helped rohith), etc. I also am managing this years GSoC including adding the retopo proposals :) > the point here - to use algorithm - and it is already integrated with > Blender and can be further used ( or not ). Rohiths code can only work on extremely simple meshes because the math library he needed for accelerating the process was not integrated yet (it is something he plans to do, but he isn't done yet), there are other issues as well that make it not production ready. Even if it were production ready, the method it uses for generating the new mesh is totally inappropriate for the simple nature of the retopology tools that are for GSoC. > > why to use? because the algorithm is much more powerfull and can > retopo quite difficult areas unlike script you promote. The script I suggested was so that the student could find where in the code to look for using the apis she will need to know. She can use the APIs in the referenced script directly if she is comfortable with python, so search the source code to find the C API that the python code in the script is calling. It was not an alogithmic reference :) > of cause - the trade of - how difficult is to use, but your point that > it is inappriate is overstretched - the algo can be used to > remesh with given quality sketched mesh.. None of your suggested references provide algorithms for generating the mesh in an appropriate manner. They are either drastically too complicated (involving things like taking derivatives of curvature and other fun math) or way to simple (doing scan fills that result in tris or quads that will give ugly topology). LetterRip ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
@pete, Jonathan, Sergey, and Letterrip: Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. > Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 13:07:55 -0800 > From: Tom M > Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools > To: bf-blender developers > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Alice here is the latest version of the surface sketch script that I > mentioned above. > > > https://svn.blender.org/svnroot/bf-extensions/trunk/py/scripts/addons/mesh_bsurfaces.py > > LetterRip > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Alice Li wrote: > > Hi, > > > > My name is Alice Li, I'm a 3rd year student majoring in Computer Science > at > > the University of Toronto and I'm interested in participating in GSoC > 2011. > > I have only recently discovered my passion for computer science (3 years > > ago) and have not contributed anything to the open source community yet, > but > > I would really be grateful for the chance to start with GSoC. > > > > I have been using Blender for 3 months now and I hope to contribute to > the > > retopology tools, specifically: > > - *Pen tool* to quickly draw polygons without the need to fill faces > > manually > > - *Paint Stroke tool* for adding faces based on intersecting strokes > > > > I chose these because I personally would find these tools very useful as > I > > found it a little tedious to manually create faces. As well, I have some > > experience with interpolation and numerical integration that I have > learned > > in a numerical methods course. I have programmed in Python for 3 years > now, > > Java and C for 2 years now. > > > > I would appreciate it if any of you could give me some pointers as to > which > > areas of the documentation/api to look at to help me get started with my > > proposal. I also want to get as much information as possible so I can > create > > a very reasonable timeline and to know if I may be overshooting or > > undershooting with my proposal ideas. > > > > Thanks very much in advance, > > Alice > > ___ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > Bf-committers@blender.org > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Tom >No, quad dominant remeshish is much more specialized and uses >algorithms wholly inappropriate for what this student is working on. so rohith was intended to use pen to outline simplified area, after he finished integration into blender, and it is inappropriate - how do you know? because your first reaction was it is wrong and you will 'press ahead' the point here - to use algorithm - and it is already integrated with Blender and can be further used ( or not ). why to use? because the algorithm is much more powerfull and can retopo quite difficult areas unlike script you promote. of cause - the trade of - how difficult is to use, but your point that it is inappriate is overstretched - the algo can be used to remesh with given quality sketched mesh.. > Dual contouring is what nick bishop (not farsthary is working on, and > again completely irrelevant to the task at hand. the story is - the algo is donated to Blender foundation for use, and Nick integrated the code. and sorry, I would say that I never mentioned Farshary as a author or this code, I mentioned him in relation to Unlimited Clay - ability to fill surfaces, remesh them adaptivly etc. his skills could be of some use in the regards > The type of filling by these algorithms is totally inappropriate for > the task at hand. I'm sorry Tom, but the algo is used just for this purpose browse at this page http://tetgen.berlios.de/features.html to Refine surface meshes Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Alice here is the latest version of the surface sketch script that I mentioned above. https://svn.blender.org/svnroot/bf-extensions/trunk/py/scripts/addons/mesh_bsurfaces.py LetterRip On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Alice Li wrote: > Hi, > > My name is Alice Li, I'm a 3rd year student majoring in Computer Science at > the University of Toronto and I'm interested in participating in GSoC 2011. > I have only recently discovered my passion for computer science (3 years > ago) and have not contributed anything to the open source community yet, but > I would really be grateful for the chance to start with GSoC. > > I have been using Blender for 3 months now and I hope to contribute to the > retopology tools, specifically: > - *Pen tool* to quickly draw polygons without the need to fill faces > manually > - *Paint Stroke tool* for adding faces based on intersecting strokes > > I chose these because I personally would find these tools very useful as I > found it a little tedious to manually create faces. As well, I have some > experience with interpolation and numerical integration that I have learned > in a numerical methods course. I have programmed in Python for 3 years now, > Java and C for 2 years now. > > I would appreciate it if any of you could give me some pointers as to which > areas of the documentation/api to look at to help me get started with my > proposal. I also want to get as much information as possible so I can create > a very reasonable timeline and to know if I may be overshooting or > undershooting with my proposal ideas. > > Thanks very much in advance, > Alice > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > it is what ronih did not finish but intended to do - to sketch above > mesh then to quad dominant remesh it. > the approach he used - allows such features. No, quad dominant remeshish is much more specialized and uses algorithms wholly inappropriate for what this student is working on. Quad dominant remeshing might eventually use surface strokes for hinting the flow of the remeshing. However what these tools need to do is drastically simpler. > the same goes for dual contouring - it might work not on whole mesh but > will reconstruct surface on given border and given mesh. Dual contouring is what nick bishop (not farsthary is working on, and again completely irrelevant to the task at hand. > the papers are long > they end up with filling the reconstructed 3D with triangles - and > there is need to have algo for that > in addition to quad dominant remeshing tetgen goes here. Besides it > gives additional angle to view the problem The type of filling by these algorithms is totally inappropriate for the task at hand. LetterRip ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Tom >These are 'retopology tools' the flow of the underlying surface is >known and can be sampled. so concerning quad rmeshing - your first objection >I don't think the quad dominant remeshing is likely to provide much >similar tools or code at all. it is what ronih did not finish but intended to do - to sketch above mesh then to quad dominant remesh it. the approach he used - allows such features. the same goes for dual contouring - it might work not on whole mesh but will reconstruct surface on given border and given mesh. > No inferences about the 3d location of the mesh needs to be made, also > the first paper you linked was about constructing 3d from 2d from a > single view. The second paper was about infering 3d form from > multiple orthographic drawings. Neither of which are anything at all > related to retopology tools. the papers are long they end up with filling the reconstructed 3D with triangles - and there is need to have algo for that in addition to quad dominant remeshing tetgen goes here. Besides it gives additional angle to view the problem > Also farstharys code in unlimited clay again has nothing to do with > the current proposal, the methods that the faces are constructed will > be an entirely different algorithm. maybe farshary will reply ;) Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > Hi Tim > >> those papers have nothing to do with the current proposal. > > could you please elaborate? > > the workflow of pen is following - a shape is drawn and is filled > with triangles. These are 'retopology tools' the flow of the underlying surface is known and can be sampled. No inferences about the 3d location of the mesh needs to be made, also the first paper you linked was about constructing 3d from 2d from a single view. The second paper was about infering 3d form from multiple orthographic drawings. Neither of which are anything at all related to retopology tools. Also farstharys code in unlimited clay again has nothing to do with the current proposal, the methods that the faces are constructed will be an entirely different algorithm. LetterRip ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Tim > those papers have nothing to do with the current proposal. could you please elaborate? the workflow of pen is following - a shape is drawn and is filled with triangles. there could be two cases 1) just plain surface, 2) a surface in 3D in case of plain surface - it seems not of much use. in case of 3D surface one needs to 'construct' imaginary 3D object and then fill it with triangles. For these purposes there are several approaches - including tetrahedrization (tetgen) or reconstruction surface with marching cubes or similar algos ( the same goes for quad remeshing - after a 'surface' is somehow given - it can be effectivly covered with quads - dual contouring is just to fill some surface - how it is given - by sketch or mesh is a second question her ). so it might not be 3D sketching, but then - OK, still the algorithm for the proposal should be provided and be just a 'pen' proposal. Regards Sergey On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Tom M wrote: > Sergey, > > those papers have nothing to do with the current proposal. > > LetterRip > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Sergey Kurdakov > wrote: >> Hi Alice >> > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Sergey, those papers have nothing to do with the current proposal. LetterRip On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > Hi Alice > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Alice found a paper http://folk.uib.no/mna024/papers/sketch/EG05_Masry.pdf ( use of tetgen for scetches ) ( I believe there are a lot other papers, but they seem need to be included into application ) and also recalled ( after looking into http://code.arc.cmu.edu/archive/dmgftp/public_html/publications/pdfs/acadia98-mdg.pdf ), that UnlimitedClay by Farsthary ( which is about to be out some day look for him mails in archive ) might be of some use at least you might request him how his code might be used in your case - because he builds meshes like pushing clay ( so no polygon rendering ) the difference is that he also dynamically changes them and you need just to fill what is rendered by pen. Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Sergey, I don't think the quad dominant remeshing is likely to provide much similar tools or code at all. LetterRip On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Sergey Kurdakov wrote: > from your description a recent addition to Blender might be of some help > > see > > http://www.blendernation.com/2011/03/23/quad-dominant-remeshing-development/ ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Alice, I'd recommend starting with the developers quickstart guide http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/Doc/Developers_Quickstart see if you can get blender built on your platform of choice. stop by #blendercoders on irc.freenode.net if you have any difficulties. The relevant code first I'd look at this script 'surface sketching' http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?183863-Surface-Sketching-script-v0.8-Beta both of those tools are quite similar to the functionality it provides. LetterRip On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Alice Li wrote: > Hi, > > My name is Alice Li, I'm a 3rd year student majoring in Computer Science at > the University of Toronto and I'm interested in participating in GSoC 2011. > I have only recently discovered my passion for computer science (3 years > ago) and have not contributed anything to the open source community yet, but > I would really be grateful for the chance to start with GSoC. > > I have been using Blender for 3 months now and I hope to contribute to the > retopology tools, specifically: > - *Pen tool* to quickly draw polygons without the need to fill faces > manually > - *Paint Stroke tool* for adding faces based on intersecting strokes > > I chose these because I personally would find these tools very useful as I > found it a little tedious to manually create faces. As well, I have some > experience with interpolation and numerical integration that I have learned > in a numerical methods course. I have programmed in Python for 3 years now, > Java and C for 2 years now. > > I would appreciate it if any of you could give me some pointers as to which > areas of the documentation/api to look at to help me get started with my > proposal. I also want to get as much information as possible so I can create > a very reasonable timeline and to know if I may be overshooting or > undershooting with my proposal ideas. > > Thanks very much in advance, > Alice > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Alice, >- *Pen tool* to quickly draw polygons without the need to fill faces >manually >- *Paint Stroke tool* for adding faces based on intersecting strokes from your description a recent addition to Blender might be of some help see http://www.blendernation.com/2011/03/23/quad-dominant-remeshing-development/ (also http://vimeo.com/21096739 ) it has a video and code ( patch ). also you might be interested to look at previous year submission https://svn.blender.org/svnroot/bf-blender/branches/soc-2010-rohith291991 -code http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Rohith291991/Gsoc2010/Proposal - proposal patch http://code.google.com/p/google-summer-of-code-2010-blender/downloads/detail?name=Rohith_BV.tar.gz ( it effectively gives https://svn.blender.org/svnroot/bf-blender/branches/soc-2010-rohith291991 - but might give idea what was changed ) it also can be used ( and updated ) and fitted with your interface part. also, I can think to use for such purpose http://tetgen.berlios.de/ code ( the code can be used with Blender and even accordingly re licensed ). but be aware - that my recommendations are educated guess - and you still need to evaluate if these tools will help you to make your task completed. hope you would be ok with it before final submission date ( April 8, friday ) Regards Sergey ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi Alice, I am not a developer and so I cannot help with the documentation or API but I did want to say that if you need any feedback during the project on the tool behavior, workflow, etc then let me know. I have spent a significant amount of time with the current retopology tools and tested out several other applications retopology tools. As a modeler and the person that suggested the Pen and Stroke tools as ideas I'm really excited to see you interested in picking this one. Let me know if I can help in any way. Jonathan Williamson Instructor - http://www.blendercookie.com Personal Trainer - http://www.mavenseed.com Portfolio - http://www.jw3d.com On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM, pete larabell wrote: > Pen tool would be a great addition! I surely hope this proposal gets > accepted! > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Alice Li wrote: > > Hi, > > > > My name is Alice Li, I'm a 3rd year student majoring in Computer Science > at > > the University of Toronto and I'm interested in participating in GSoC > 2011. > > I have only recently discovered my passion for computer science (3 years > > ago) and have not contributed anything to the open source community yet, > but > > I would really be grateful for the chance to start with GSoC. > > > > I have been using Blender for 3 months now and I hope to contribute to > the > > retopology tools, specifically: > > - *Pen tool* to quickly draw polygons without the need to fill faces > > manually > > - *Paint Stroke tool* for adding faces based on intersecting strokes > > > > I chose these because I personally would find these tools very useful as > I > > found it a little tedious to manually create faces. As well, I have some > > experience with interpolation and numerical integration that I have > learned > > in a numerical methods course. I have programmed in Python for 3 years > now, > > Java and C for 2 years now. > > > > I would appreciate it if any of you could give me some pointers as to > which > > areas of the documentation/api to look at to help me get started with my > > proposal. I also want to get as much information as possible so I can > create > > a very reasonable timeline and to know if I may be overshooting or > > undershooting with my proposal ideas. > > > > Thanks very much in advance, > > Alice > > ___ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > Bf-committers@blender.org > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Pen tool would be a great addition! I surely hope this proposal gets accepted! On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Alice Li wrote: > Hi, > > My name is Alice Li, I'm a 3rd year student majoring in Computer Science at > the University of Toronto and I'm interested in participating in GSoC 2011. > I have only recently discovered my passion for computer science (3 years > ago) and have not contributed anything to the open source community yet, but > I would really be grateful for the chance to start with GSoC. > > I have been using Blender for 3 months now and I hope to contribute to the > retopology tools, specifically: > - *Pen tool* to quickly draw polygons without the need to fill faces > manually > - *Paint Stroke tool* for adding faces based on intersecting strokes > > I chose these because I personally would find these tools very useful as I > found it a little tedious to manually create faces. As well, I have some > experience with interpolation and numerical integration that I have learned > in a numerical methods course. I have programmed in Python for 3 years now, > Java and C for 2 years now. > > I would appreciate it if any of you could give me some pointers as to which > areas of the documentation/api to look at to help me get started with my > proposal. I also want to get as much information as possible so I can create > a very reasonable timeline and to know if I may be overshooting or > undershooting with my proposal ideas. > > Thanks very much in advance, > Alice > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] GSoC 2011: Improving Retopology Tools
Hi, My name is Alice Li, I'm a 3rd year student majoring in Computer Science at the University of Toronto and I'm interested in participating in GSoC 2011. I have only recently discovered my passion for computer science (3 years ago) and have not contributed anything to the open source community yet, but I would really be grateful for the chance to start with GSoC. I have been using Blender for 3 months now and I hope to contribute to the retopology tools, specifically: - *Pen tool* to quickly draw polygons without the need to fill faces manually - *Paint Stroke tool* for adding faces based on intersecting strokes I chose these because I personally would find these tools very useful as I found it a little tedious to manually create faces. As well, I have some experience with interpolation and numerical integration that I have learned in a numerical methods course. I have programmed in Python for 3 years now, Java and C for 2 years now. I would appreciate it if any of you could give me some pointers as to which areas of the documentation/api to look at to help me get started with my proposal. I also want to get as much information as possible so I can create a very reasonable timeline and to know if I may be overshooting or undershooting with my proposal ideas. Thanks very much in advance, Alice ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
