"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> "GioSeregni" <gms### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Unfortunately as I feared I tried with MeshLab to increase the resolution, but
> > it introduces errors.
> > As I thought it loses the border between the colors and also inverts (!!) some
> > faces.
>
> I just had a look at what installing MeshLab would entail, but the above changed
> my mind :-).
>
> still, it's true when you write "...but if you want to improve the mesh, which
> is clean (and it's an advantage)...", therefore I suggest:
>
> > This is the reason why I always work with my tools.
>
> if you can export a mesh to a GNU/GTS, that library has loads of tools to work
> with clean (and not so clean :-)) meshes.
>
>
> > I have an idea, in the next
> > few days I will implement a new feature. It takes the object and extracts the
> > files divided by color. In this way you can improve the parts that need it and
> > then it is easy to join them!
>
> and this is where I cannot "follow", why "by color" ?  why not "by component",
> and leave texture/colourising for when the object is used ?
>
>
> regards, jr.

because I use objects, and dividing the components related to the mesh is the
best way to be able to vary colors and manage the smooth. The smooth must have
edges that correspond to the change of material. This is also the reason why, if
it is true that it is possible to multiply the faces, this must be done in an
"intelligent" way, that is, preserving the edges. Then there are many methods
and algorithms.. but they do not work as I intend
BR
G.

Post a reply to this message