|
|
Changing the vertices mesh without changing the shape
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Changing the vertices mesh without changing the shape // New Users
Post by prime55 // Sep 5, 2008, 8:38am
|
prime55
Total Posts: 4
|
Is there a tool for Changing the vertices mesh - without changing the shape.
Hi, i would like to ask if truespace has this tools:
Is it possible to change the vertices mesh (like streching/contracting it) and without changing shape and without the numberers of vertices
So you made a shape in truespace but at the end you want to place on a side more vertices or less but you don't want to delete or add new ones.
Like the shape is a stone and the vertices mesh is a sock that you pull over it. At the end you just want to strech a bit the sock.
;-))))
I don't know how to explain it better.
Thanks |
Post by TomG // Sep 5, 2008, 9:43am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Hmm I am not sure of the question here unfortunately, so not sure how to answer.
You can scale parts of the mesh without changing the number of vertices - just use the rectangle select tool (or lasso, or select by painting, and you can select faces, edges or vertices as fits your need), and then scale that selection. This "stretches" that part of the model without changing the vertex count, and keeping a similar shape (naturally the shape changes in between the part being stretched, and the part not being stretched - in fact Soft Select might be good for that, to blend that seam).
Let me know if that is what you had in mind - this would be like adding a large rock into a sock and parts of the sock being stretched around the rock, other parts remaining unstretched.
HTH!
Tom |
Post by prime55 // Sep 5, 2008, 10:43am
|
prime55
Total Posts: 4
|
Thank you for the answer.
Well a bit...Is there a special tool that allow you to scale... or size the mesh... but specially without the shape changing... . So that just the vertices stay in the place which the shape needs in minimum, to be the same shape... but you can move the vertices "on the shape" (around), so you also not destroying the shape?
Sorry for my english ;-)
thank you |
Post by TomG // Sep 5, 2008, 11:24am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Hmm, no still don't understand. To scale a shape, the vertices need to move in space, which means they have to change position and can't "stay in place".
They can stay in the same place relative to each other, which is what my workflow would do.
If you want to move the vertices around on the surface and not change the shape at all - I am not sure why you would want to do that :) The model would render the same. UV mapping would change (but you could probably achieve the same effects changing the UV mapping or similar).
You can use snapping tools to constrain vertex movement to within the shape of the faces / edges it is on, achieving the ability to move vertices on the existing surface. That would be one vertex at a time though. And again, the real question is what effect you want to achieve in your final image or model?
HTH!
Tom |
Post by Heidi // Sep 5, 2008, 11:42am
|
Heidi
Total Posts: 335
|
Your the shape of your object is defined by the vertices. If you move those vertices the shape of the object will change.
Now you can create your rock with a minimum number of vertices and sub-divide the mesh. You can then weight the subdivision to adjust how tightly the subdivision fits to the shape defined by the original vertices.
If you subsequently remove the subdivision your original shape and vertices are still there. |
Post by prime55 // Sep 6, 2008, 4:55am
|
prime55
Total Posts: 4
|
For example, i made a cube (6 sides) and it has 25x25 vertices. I decided i want to have most of my vertices at just one side, becase i want to form something (later) on this side that needs more details and for that i would need more vertices.
So i would place all the not needed vertices on this one side, just 6 vertices would be needed on its place to ensure that the cube stays a cube.
Later when the rest of the vertices is on this one side, i could build out some new shape details on this special side.
It would be usefull, when you are limited to add or delete new vertices. You could correcting mistakes or reshape details something after you already made a complicated shape.
For example you build something very long time from a pre-given vertice mesh that you cannot change. At the end you realize that you let out an important detail... so you could getting some vertices together without changing all your made given shape to much (like described before) or you need to start again. |
Post by kena // Sep 6, 2008, 6:18am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
you could select a face and choose the quad divide tool. That will add geometry to just that face.
Not sure how you would reduce geometry without deleting it though.
14912 |
Post by Heidi // Sep 6, 2008, 6:20am
|
Heidi
Total Posts: 335
|
For example, i made a cube (6 sides) and it has 25x25 vertices. I decided i want to have most of my vertices at just one side, becase i want to form something (later) on this side that needs more details and for that i would need more vertices.
Nope, it doesn't work that way. The cube isn't an object that you just slide the vertices around on. The vertices create and define your cube. Moving the vertices will change the shape. However, you can add vertices without changing the shape.
The workflow woud be to create your basic cube (minimum of 8 vertices). If you later decide that you want additional detail there are a host of tools for adding more detail. If all you want to do is add vertices to a side you can use Quad Divide, Add Poygons, Add Edges, or Bevel (with zero offset). Any of these would add vertices without changing the shape of your original cube.
You start from the minimum number of vertices/edges and increase the complexity where you want added detail. If you later want to revert back to your original cube (8 vertices) you would delete the vertices that were used to create the additional detail.
Edit: Sorry Kena, we cross posted :) |
Post by kena // Sep 6, 2008, 6:25am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
Here is an example of what I was talking about above - I took a min to quad divide the cube, then select faces and quad divide again. You can select more than one face at a time and then apply what you want.
14913
EDIT:
No Problem Heidi - It's always good to get help and we both like to help, so there ya go!! |
Post by prime55 // Sep 6, 2008, 10:05am
|
prime55
Total Posts: 4
|
Thank you for your answers. :)
to TomB
"You can use snapping tools to constrain vertex movement to within the shape of the faces / edges it is on, achieving the ability to move vertices on the existing surface. That would be one vertex at a time though."
So there is no other posibility for moving more then one vertices with this technique ?
Is it maybe possible to copy the shape and to use this as base for the snapping tool? Would this helps to move more vertices then just one ?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To Heidi and Kena: The problem would be that i just can use the same mesh from beginning till its finished... without add or del vertices on it. |
Post by TomG // Sep 8, 2008, 1:50am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Moving vertices from one face to another is not really possible - as Heidi says, the vertices are not points stuck on the object, they actually define the object.
The solution though seems simple - you want more detail on one particular face, so you don't move vertices on there, you simply make new ones, to support the extra detail. If you want less vertices on the other faces, then just delete the vertices there.
Note, I am not sure why you need to maintain an exact vertex count, you don't say why in your explanations - normally you don't need to and can just add more detail by adding more vertices, so not sure why you are wanting to not add more vertices. It would seem simplest just to add more vertices with Quad Divide on the relevant face, and leave the other faces just the same (I am assuming they have a certain number of vertices to match the detail they need to represent, so really we shouldn't "move" those anyway).
HTH!
Tom
EDIT - You could use snapping to another object perhaps, but the process would be VERY complex and tedious, and I still don't see what you would gain over simply 1) just adding the new vertices and leaving the others in place or 2) adding the new vertices and deleting unneeded ones from other faces. |
|
