Jump to content
Hash, Inc. Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Malo

  1. Thanks for your return.
    Paths are saved ... but strange thing they are only visible when the "Relationship1" window is open. If I close the "Relationship1" window then the path links disappear. It is not possible for me to use the pipette to select a bones or a path (v.19). My problem can come from there?

  2. Hello Robert,
    Yes, the ideal for exporting triangular patches into polygons would be this topology. Now I doubt that we will not rewrite a polygonal subdivision express for export. But I thought it would be possible to filter its triangles-quads to rewrite them into triangles.

    Hello Rodney,
    The proposal (left back foot) is good to avoid the problem of hooks, only does not solve the problem of triangles-quads. The best solution in this case would be to turn the hook into a CPs for export (see the front left foot). There I had to think about it before, because I have to redo the UVs. :)

    Hooks and triangles are two differents problems.
    What is strange to me is that this bad topology in AM is not seen, whereas when we push the creation of weird patches with the hooks, it is seen in general as for the following image.


  3. Robcat,


    Yes, "f 3/1/3 1/1/1 1/1/1" is not correct. It's a flat triangle, it will not be visible. Fot me their writing lulls the file and does not bring any interest.

    The import of AM is a step that is not to do with the subdivision of the patches, however it remains interesting to study how the import interprets the writing of triangle-quads export by AM. if we look at the file export in a text reader, we see that there are only quads.


    The model is the same crtl / copy four times in the same file. So the order of writing the triangular patches is not the same. Hence the difference of topology.

    It is by modeling the foot of this dog that I noticed this problem:


  4. This missing faces it is not a problem of normal inverted, but of interpretation of a triangles written like a quads.
    It seems to me that the problem comes from the fact that the three-sided patches are not a triangle but a four-sided patches whose one side is zero. That's why the quad topology focuses on one of the corners and not the center of the patches. The dynamic subdivision of AM does the rest, it eliminates the quads whose volume is almost zero, a flat quad is zero, it eliminates it. on the other hand, if a quad at a null side is volume it is not zero, so it remains. AM only manages quads inside a patch.
    Yes it is possible to create an external tool to correct the triangles of files exported by AM, but it seems to me that it is better to correct at the source.
    Here is a model where there is a 4-sided and a 3-sided patches, move the CPs for the differentiators.



  5. I think as you Nemyax, but I am not sure.


    Passing through Wings3D corrects the writing of triangles (without keeping vertices numbers), but does not correct the topology that is internal to AM. Part of the problem of topology does not come only from triangles, but from writing hooks that do not write enough information to know where to attach but try to guess it.


  6. Hi, thank you for your answers.


    Is the problem not found in the SDK libraries? because the problem is found in the Lwo export.


    I doubt that the answer is not as simple as rewrite the line of triangles when exporting because it would have been done for a long time. And I am aware that the interpretation of the patches is a real puzzle, seen the number of non-visible combinations that exists. (even if I would like to hope that it is simpler than I imagine)

    Here is another problem related to the export and the three-sided patches. Here are the same three-sided patches, copy 4 times, which gives different topologies.
    We can see that sometimes the hook is attached to the wrong side. Is it due to the fact that he is lost to know if he is attached to AB, BC, CD or AA?


  7. Good evening everyone,

    I ask myself this question for a few years already, without finding a logical answer.
    I noticed that the AM export Obj writes the triangles like quads.
    That is to say for a triangle ABC, the convention is to write as follows: f A B C
    But AM write them: f A B C A, which is the convention of writing quads (f A B C D).
    Some programs like Wings3D play them correctly, others like Blender, consider them as bad quads that they ignore, which creates holes and therefore unusable.
    I thought this was because the three-sided patches are a variant of the four-sided patches, but I do not understand the usefulness of keeping this writing export that makes it heavier files and that do not make them compatible with any programs.
    But seeing changes this done during the past years on the export plugin of obj, without this triangle writing being changed; I tell myself that there is something that I do not know or that I do not see, hence my question: why write triangles as quads?
    Thanks in advance for those who will be able to show me the benefits of writing these triangles as well. :)


    I ask this question, to know if it would be interesting to request an option to Stephen Gross to correct this problem in the export plugin. Not wanting to post this request if she is stupid.
  • Create New...