Is this retarded or genius?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8K5CyQB_kc
Basically you segment a bunch of preexisting meshes into a database that you can later query for patches that fit certain constraints and looping patterns. As a programmer this seems quite logical and brilliant to me but I wanted to know what actual 3D artists think about it.
>>512966
This is like zremesher on steroids and in real time.
I hope someone funds this.
>>512966
It's pretty neat.
Could be useful if someone made this into a plugin.
>>512966
If it cuts down the time an artist has to fiddle with technical aspects while producing great result, its fucking brilliant!
I LIEK IT
thank goodness
finally i wouldn't have to retopo models with broken as fuck snapping projection
>>512966
>Is this retarded or genius?
genius
>>512966
you can test the program here
http://igl.ethz.ch/projects/sketch-retopo/sketch-retopo-license.html
>>513023
Yep, take a look at the license.
Shit's RIDICULOUS.
If you follow it, you can actually do NOTHING with that software AND you have to delete it after 24 months (lol).
I seriously don't know why they're so scared of people actually using it to get stuff done.
Someone on YT even asked the programmer about if there will be updates or if the program will even go opensource but he said that the uni has all the rights and he can't do shit because they allocated him for other stuff and he isn't allowed to do stuff on his own since the software he programmed is owned by the uni and not by him and they don't care about it currently.
Also, this software crashes at pretty much every 10th click.
You will have better luck with RetopoGun or the Contours plugin for Blender.
>>512966
>but I wanted to know what actual 3D artists think about it.
there are artists on /3/?
I thought this is a discussion board about the "best software™" only
>>513029
>Someone on YT even asked the programmer about if there will be updates or if the program will even go opensource but he said that the uni has all the rights and he can't do shit because they allocated him for other stuff and he isn't allowed to do stuff on his own since the software he programmed is owned by the uni and not by him and they don't care about it currently.
yikes.
impressed
>>513042
The university owns the program but not the research.
Theoretically someone could reverse engineer the research article and write their own program that does the same thing, only runs better.
>>513057
http://igl.ethz.ch/projects/patch-quad/pattern-based-quadrangulation.pdf
This software is pretty much unusable at the moment.
There are at least 2 programmers who're currently working on making a plugin for Blender using the papers of this thing. They're actually competing against each other, why I don't know. Joined forces would speed up things.
Also, in the meantime the Contour tools are also a big help.
>>513031
I'll toss in my two cents, I think it looks more impressive that it actually is, it's just one more attempt at the 'shrek button', the one click everything is done, and it's perfect. looks useful for early production work, but we have things like zbrush that give decent enough clean quad meshes to work with. most character work (which is all that is showcased here) will be created by anal people who want specific control over their meshes,or a lot of game studios who use a lot of pre-existing base meshes that work with their skinning and rigging solutions. tl;dr looks cool but pretty much useless
>>513140
>There are at least 2 programmers who're currently working on making a plugin for Blender using the papers of this thing. They're actually competing against each other, why I don't know. Joined forces would speed up things.
I'm guessing because they both want to be faggots and sell them on Blender Market instead of improve the free, open source program they are developing it for.
Thanks, CG Cookie!
>>514207
I think Blender Market is a win-win for everyone. People have more motivation to make cool shit and brokefags can still download the software for free if they want to.
>>514209
Pending on what you are referring to as "the software", this is not a "win/win" situation for two reasons:
If you mean the pay add-ons, this is stupid because at that point you may as well pirate/buy pro, industry standard shit.
If you mean Blender itself, then you are talking about a software that could very well slowly drift towards becoming a development wasteland because programmers are "motivated" (by CG Cookie employees that pursue them no less) to not work with the Blender Foundation and instead sell their work as separate pay add-ons required for Blender to be worth a shit and keep up with the industry, which brings us right back to point one.
Blender Market is a parasite, and the people behind it are probably fully aware of it. I've never seen an argument that explains how it is, in any way, beneficial to the development of Blender.
>>514213
Blame capitalism.
>>514213
>I've never seen an argument that explains how it is, in any way, beneficial to the development of Blender.
Things get made that otherwise wouldn't because they take too much time for someone to do for free. Blender Foundation gives out grants to programmers for this exact reason.
I'm going to write some additional shit, but those first two sentences are the key: People (a very small number of them) have already been being paid to develop for Blender for years.
Blender Market is just an expansion of this.
Additionally, some of these features (for example, some of the quality of life features from the paid render UI add-on) end up finding their way into Blender via the Foundation.
Most of the add-ons (say, The Grove) combine a lot of high quality assets and scripting to let a user quickly make a nice looking tree, or quickly setup a low memory HDRI, or click and drag a nice lighting setup or what have you.
All shit you could do yourself if you spent the hours they've spent assembling a library of assets, taking or buying photographs (textures, HDRis, whatever), and coding a py script with a nice UI.
If you don't want to compensate them for that, then do it yourself, but if you're a studio and you want to quickly make nice trees, then $109 is pretty cheap.
>>514256
>If you don't want to compensate them for that, then do it yourself
Or you could just download the addon without paying. Most of them are easily available at Github.
Paying for the addons is more about donating to people doing good work and writing good software that is useful. Less about paying.
>>512966
>that feel when you have been drawing, deleting surface area and applying change manually for years.
>>513029
Sounds like his Uni has him by the balls and are busy stroking their dicks thinking they might some day make a pile of cash off his work.
