Is there any way to carve?
Hello there!
Quick question, I've been trying to get my model from a dynamesh to an actual mesh. My character has a thin tail, and going from a dynamesh straight to the zremesher for whatever reason clips it off.
To get around this I've been using the 'Remesh' tool in the SubTool menu, and then projecting it back onto the dynamesh, and finally zremeshing from there. The issue I'm having is that when I remesh the model, it smooths over the fingers like she's wearing mittens. You can see what I mean here. The first picture is the dynamesh, the second the remesh, and the third is the projection.
Is there a way to 'carve' out the fingers? Nothing I'm googling seems to help or work the way I want it too. Or am I missing an easy fix?
Thanks so much!
Posted Mar 17, 2015, 2:24 AM UTC
From your dynamesh make polygroups for the hands and tail, remesh the main body only (shift control click it so it's the only visible one) and then repeat for the other groups. Zremesher will give each group a different poly density hence you can preserve more detail. Add curves for best effect.
For reference: http://docs.pixologic.com/user-guide/3d-modeling/topology/zremesher/partial-mesh/
While not that useful here (since there will be no need for carving if you followed the above) you can get the carving effect by using trim and clip brushes and also by using insert brushes (remembering to hold alt so that when you redynamesh the insert will be subtracted from the main mesh)
Wouldn't it be difficult to join the groups back together after remeshing individually because it would give each a different vert count?
And am I insane or do trim and clip have a propensity to leave vertices flying off into far away places?
I don't see any reason why you would want to get rid of the groups, but joining them together is as simple as clicking the 'group visible' button. Furthermore, in dynamesh if you find you're not getting enough resolution for something (such as the eye area), you can hide everything else and hit the 'divide' button which will subdivide the polys only in that area. That variable density will go away if you redynamesh though. I find this technique useful for prepping a model for retopology and detail projection.
The trim and clip brushes don't always function the way you'd expect them, and for certain applications they will flat out refuse to work. They are useful for hard surface modelling though and can yield some interesting effects.
I mean to merge the vertices after they've been retopologized. If you do hands with one setting and body with another it would make the open ends have incongruent vert counts. So if you put them back into another software and use subdivision on them it might get wonky because they wouldn't be attached. They're not actually joined, and joining them would be a PITA because they'd have a different number of verts on the openings. Definitely don't think it's as simple as turning off group visibility if you've retopologized each group.
-Oh is this why you mention this? You'd retopologize each group individually and then do them as a whole later??
This is how it looks, I have 3 polygroups that I retopologized separately:
http://i.imgur.com/iR0qdeg.jpg
The mesh is airtight and all quads so it will behave fine in any other package. Do some reading on that partial mesh documentation I linked above, do some tests and see how it works.
The dynamesh bit I mentioned as a side note, not relevant here but you might find it useful if you've got a big project and can't afford and extra 5 million polys in places that don't even need them.
edit: just to clarify, the polygroups are connected, it's a smooth surface. However depending on the situation you might see a "seam" which is the result of a sharp change in density. Usually you can smooth that seam out though (the alternate smoothing method that preserves shape)
edit2: more on the seam, in the retopology tab there is the 'FreezeBorders' option, which will make it so that the welding seam is taken into account first (as opposed to the polycount you specify) and results in almost a perfect transition. I usually forgo that option since I want the polycount to be first priority.