Using decimated UVs on other figures

Hello!

I would like to ask if it would be theroretically possible to once manually decimate a Genesis 2 figure in another program using manual retopology and then load these new UVs on other models of the same type (for example "Genesis 2 male").

One can turn the resolution of a Genesis 2 figure from "Highest" to "Normal", but unfortunately there is no "Game-Ready Decimated" option for it, so I am looking for an easy solution where I have to do the decimation / retopology work only once and then apply it to other figures of the same type.

I don't want to use Decimator because it does not really have any knowledge about the figure and just decimates an "unknown" mesh which does not give the best results possible.

Comments

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 102,309
    edited December 1969

    No, because when you retopologise you chnage the vertex and polygon ordering (and count). Depending on your modeller you might be able to change the retopologised mesh for the female to the male shape - using some kind of background constraint, or even loading the male shape as a morph of the female and preserving it through the retopology, then use the Transfer utility to rerig both, topologically identical, as new female and male.

  • edited December 1969

    I am not talking about using the retopologized mesh on any other figure.
    I want to use it on the same model type.

    Basically, I was just asking if it wouldn't be possible to introduce a new setting named "Game-Ready" for the resolution setting.
    That would be the bomb!

  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,504
    edited December 1969

    He means that the vertex count on the new UV map won't match up. Remember, it's giving each vertex its own UV coordinates to display the texture. If you decimate the figure, you lose most of those vertices which means there would be many unmapped vertices when you try and use those coordinates on a non-decimated figure. Even in cases where the vertex count remains the same, the order can often differ, so the UV's are mapped, but incorrectly, giving some ugly texture bugs.

    Perhaps the bigger issue though is that decimation often remaps the surfaces as well. If there's a different number of surfaces or they're in different places on the figure, it will be impossible to match them up with the UV.

  • edited December 1969

    Okay, understood. :-)
    Then I am suggesting the feature "Game-Ready" resolution for the models.
    I guess DAZ can do this internally and sell it as a new product.
    The decimator is not sufficient, but I guess many people would pay a lot of money for a feature like the one I mentioned.

    Or perhaps a feature like this already exists, and I just didn't find it.

  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,504
    edited December 1969

    The problem with 'game ready' resolution figures is that it would need to be done for all the clothing and accessories for those figures as well. The whole point of decimator is to give the user the tools to reduce polygon counts so that making thousands of new models or LoD's of existing ones wouldn't be necessary.

    It's also highly impractical to work this way too. A clothed figure would have many more polygons than necessary, as it would have polygons underneath their outfit which are simply being wasted. Most video games, even those with interchangeable clothing, replace the entire body model with a new one to keep polygon counts low. You'll notice Poser's 'game ready' figures are pre-clothed to avoid this problem.

    It's one of the major reasons I've never strongly considered using Daz figures in my own work except as a template to get an idea of figure structure. I don't own Decimator so I don't know how well (or poorly) it handles the actual de-resolution. But it's worth noting that in virtually any game you'll want several different levels of detail anyway, so being able to reduce it at a whim makes a lot more sense than giving you a fixed figure with a fixed level of detail.

  • edited December 1969

    Totally agreed, thank you very much for your insights!

Sign In or Register to comment.