@Blaizer The video you linked shows the same method from my video. The old script you talk about, from modo 302, is it usable for Blender? Obviously I'm not very interesting in doing this in other apps for now. If it's compatible with Blender, I'd love to try it if you could share.
@YaP That's probably the fastest one so far, nice! I can see it being cumbersome for certain pipe shapes that have a lot more zigzagging going on, but for simpler setups this is probably the best solution, thanks for sharing
@pior The skin method is great, and probably the best alternative when YaP's solution doesn't cut it. Thanks pior!
@Justo I dearly, dearly miss my Max splines and Blender's curves are no comparison. For pipes and wires I exclusively build them with edges and verts and apply a sub-div mod(or just bevel verts if it won't be edited after) I use either Quickpipe addon or Hops equivalent(can also quickly adjust diameter at any time with Hops)
I find working with verts/edges much easier and faster than messing about with curves. Say, for instance, you have 2 pipe/wire sockets that you want a wire going between, I'll just duplicate the 2 cylinder caps>P separate selection>collapse them to a single vert each>select the verts and hit F to connect them>then just add verts in the middle of the new edge and edit the positions>add a subdiv and continue editing. This keeps everything easy to manage and edit and pipe/wire ends will always be in the exact position.
Also, Fluent has a great pipes/wires/bundles tool with options for twisting and adding sleeves and other effects.
@musashidan That Quick Pipes addon is fantastic! Am I correct in saying that there is no way you can resize the curve points, as you would using the Skin modifier workflow? It's not a big deal though - the speed from using this is well worth it, I think.
For making pipes I wrote a script that automatically converts a selected edge to curve and calls HOPS curve to pipe so I can immediately adjust pipe diameter. works great!
@machin3 damn looks like down right black magic. Are you actually unwrapping the geometry or assigning UV coords based on a formula?
Yes I'm unwrapping and positioning the unwrapped faces on the trim sheet. DECALmachine knows exactly where every trim is, once you set up the trims. Here's an early view of how this setup process is done:
@musashidan That Quick Pipes addon is fantastic! Am I correct in saying that there is no way you can resize the curve points, as you would using the Skin modifier workflow? It's not a big deal though - the speed from using this is well worth it, I think.
No, that is a feature of Skin mod. Regarding Quickpipe though, I know you use Hops, so once your pipe is created you can select the object at any time and call the Hops menu to dynamically adjust segments/diameter. Also, Maxi just added a QuickPipe feature to his interactive tools addon.
@Blaizer Looks like they're(BF devs) considering dropping Sub-div as a modifier altogether and making it a function inherent to the mesh. This would be a disaster for modeling, as far as I'm concerned. https://developer.blender.org/T68891
Another cool thing to do with skin modifier based cables is to add a displacement modifier before the skin and set it to RGB to XYZ with some noise input that has RGB to get some procedural unevenness
@musashidan That Quick Pipes addon is fantastic! Am I correct in saying that there is no way you can resize the curve points, as you would using the Skin modifier workflow? It's not a big deal though - the speed from using this is well worth it, I think.
Regarding Quickpipe though, I know you use Hops, so once your pipe is created you can select the object at any time and call the Hops menu to dynamically adjust segments/diameter.
Jaw just dropped to the floor. Thanks for this! I specifically asked about any helpers in their Discord and no one remembered to mention this. As for Maxivz' stuff, judging from the GIF it doesn't look like it does anything Quick Pipe doesn't do already (and is missing the very big and convenient UI QP has). I'll check it out later though.
@MACHIN3 Thank you for mentioning that Alt+S tip! I've been trying to practice with your meshMachine tools a little bit every day now by the way (can't say I find the Fuse tool as useful as some of the others in the toolset). I know you've been very busy with Decals for now. Keep being awesome you goddamn rockstar.
@MACHIN3 ; This is an edge decal I have manually created in 3ds max. It is a rather tedious process which I suspect you might be able to do better. Edge decals like these are great to work with though as they are super flexible, easy to LOD away etc etc (but I dont have to convince you of that). Does my example make sense?
@Blaizer Looks like they're(BF devs) considering dropping Sub-div as a modifier altogether and making it a function inherent to the mesh. This would be a disaster for modeling, as far as I'm concerned. https://developer.blender.org/T68891
It sounds like they pretend to copy modo in that aspect. I hope they do it well. It might be a great thing, i cross fingers.
In modo, we can toggle subbdivision in a selection of polygons, or globally with a key (tab). We also have render/viewport iterations in the mesh properties.
If they add this feature and has a good perfomance in viewports, modo will have its days counted.
@Blaizer : I honestly doubt that it will be toggle-able on sub-selections. The thing to keep in mind when using Blender is that some features are implemented by geniuses/experts who are also actual users (like the current revamp of the sculpt mode with the the addition of masking, posing, remeshing, and so on) ; while others are tackled by engineer types, like here with the subdivision revamp. That's of course totally normal, but I think it's important to never put *too much* hope in the latter as engineers who are not power users themselves will naturally not be able to fully grasp the production context of this or that feature. And of course the best example of that is the loss of performance you are experiencing when working with subdivision in the way your are used to in another package.
Another instance is the new Eevee viewport, which is fantastic for some stuff but has obviously not been fully tested (and much less worked on) by any game animators, since its performance crawls when handling skeletal meshes and it gets even worse if normalmaps are applied. Same goes for the decision earlier in 2.8 to use non-colored icons, probably made by someone very new to UI/UX design who fell in love with his own work. Same for the change in click behavior in 2.8 making selection sluggish. And so on. It will always happen.
I think it's really important to keep this human aspect in mind, and *never* putting any hope in future releases and/or announced features. It's much healthier for ones mental health to just stick to what works rather than hopping on a new bandwagon just because it's brand new. That way one doesn't get frustrated or disappointed each time features get broken or badly implemented. Thankfully enough no one is forcing or pushing anyone to use this or that version ( ... and that to me is the one feature that makes this software superior to anything else out there, despite all the flaws).
Yeah, i think the same. I have some hopes with Blender. In my case, with an already stablished workflow, they must do better in order to make people like me to switch completely to Blender. I'm not going to break my workflow and going back 15 years in my life using obsolete apps like 3ds Max.
Furthermore, modo 14 will launch soon and my hopes are very low, it won't be a great release (the reworked bevel/chamfer system is worse than Blender's as far as i know). I still use a very old version of modo and i don't plan to upgrade because i will have too many features broken (mostly very useful scripts).
Modo for example, only excels in subdivision modeling, the other features are like incomplete or are very simple or basic (so they are useless for me). The same happens with too many features in Blender, they are there, but they are uncomplete or they result to me useless due to a lack of perfomance or quality. I will always prefer the software with less hassle to do things, with fewer clicks, and Blender for non-subidivision models is a great choice, but only with add-ons (Speedflow for example). The standalone version of Blender is the most basic thing i have ever seen for 3D. Truespace had powerful features and it's a dead software.
There are too many people in the Blender Development with different ideas, and they all think theirs are the best. Development is going fine but very slow. Sometimes we have steps backwards, such as the issue with subdivision modeling, or negative extrusions type sketchup (there was a great add-on for blender 2.79), but in general i think they are doing fine.
I'm customed to get with software, so well, these hopes i have are more like wishes. At the end, i perfectly know they won't deliver the promised (2.82), nor they will meet all expectations (Bevel+profile edit/saving).
If at the end, we can't toggle subdivisions on a selection of polygons like in modo (that is very basic), i will make suggestions in order to change that. And if i'm not heard, i will keep using the best app i'm using today for my needs, modo.
@MACHIN3, of course! I forgot about Alt+S, I was just trying S. Useful tip.
@Justo, yes this feature in Hops did a similar thing to my jaw when I discovered it first.
@Blaizer I don't do much sub-D modeling these days as I've moved my high/low workflow to a pure polymodeling with baked round corners so I don't feel the pain as much as you. However, the performance all round in Blender starts to really suffer in a lot of other areas too once the scene starts to become more involved. It's so important that the devs get this sorted this year, but at least it's being activerly wored on across multiple areas. Could be a few years though. It took Max many years to get decent performance after the XBR nightmare in 2012. It's only now just coming together after 8 years. Let's hope it doesn't take that long............
Hey, I need help or guide for blender pie menus. I have bought PIE menu editor which everybody reccomended for me, it's great and pretty powerfull but I cannot achieve one effect. I have my regular pie menu but I want to have an additional regular menu (or item list) below it. I have no idea how to achieve that, I saw that some people on youtube have something similar. Anybody anything? I am adding screenshot of maya's pie menu because I would like to achieve something like that:
Anyone knows how to create a primitive aligned to a specific normal? Was looking into doing this so I could select a face and place the primitive already there...
@Fletcher I didn't know about that Align dropdown menu, nice, thanks Fletcher Unfortunately it wouldn't cut it for my purposes though, since I was hoping I would apply this with the Wonder Mesh plugin I have - those primitives, as awesome as they are, unfortunately do not have an option to align themselves automatically to the 3D Cursor (afaik).
Edit: Found this answer, where they do it with a cone. I copied the code, but Blender's throwing at me an error at line 25:
cone.rotation_quaternion*=Qrot.inverted()
"TypeError: In place element-wise multiplication: not supported between 'Quaternion' and 'Quaternion' types"
Now I'm wondering how I could scale the primitives being created...If I do this with a very small face for example, the current primitives with the scale of 1 would be too big. Looking around now to see if I can find a way to get the dimensions of the selected face, and somehow apply it to the primitive, so that it is more or less around the same size.
@Cirno holy amazeballs, that works fantastic! And you even made it using the wonder mesh primitives. Thank you Cirno!
Edit: Whereas it seems to work perfectly with cylinders and cylinders, for some reason boxes and planes are coming out way big (and in the box' case, not scaled uniformly). Do you know why?
@Cirno holy amazeballs, that works fantastic! And you even made it using the wonder mesh primitives. Thank you Cirno!
Edit: Whereas it seems to work perfectly with cylinders and cylinders, for some reason boxes and planes are coming out way big (and in the box' case, not scaled uniformly). Do you know why?
The math @Justo It's using the edge length and this differs greatly between a cylinder and a box
@justo I haven't updated Qblocker in a while, but I believe there's been a few nice additions, including Wondermesh non-destructive feature.
Your script is very useful. Are you just calling prims from hotkeys?
Keyhydra in Max has this same feature with multi-tap press. 1tap for plane.....double tap for cube.....etc. and mouse wheel plus mod keys for parameter changes. I wish Blender had multi tap hotkeys.
@musashidan I downloaded QBlocker just now and played around with it. It's nice - I can see the ability to set a working plane being pretty useful. AFAIK it doesn't implement wondermesh's primitives, but the objects it creates do have parametric values you can tweak after creation. The box however doesn't have any for segments, and the sphere has a global value which alters everything, whereas wondermesh has separate values for segments and rings.
I think for the time being I'll test the waters with these scripts I bashed together though. I like the ability to be able to press a button and bam, the primitive is done and there. No need to hit the hotkey, first click to set diameter, second click for height (wasnt a big fan of this in Max either), etc...With QBlocker you can also hold Ctrl+Shift and drag-click to create uniformly-scaled primitives, but again, if I know I want to do this anyway most of the times, I would rather press one button and have the object be there already, than to remember which 2-3 keys I need to hold down and whatever else comes after it haha.
Your script is very useful. Are you just calling prims from hotkeys?
Yeah, they're mapped to a single button in my logitech mouse (it has 12+ buttons lol). Default hotkey makes cube, w/Ctrl sphere, w/Shift Cylinder, w/Alt Plane. I have it mapped like this in Maya and Max too, so it's easy to remember (and fast) no matter which app I'm working in. I could probably add more primitives too, like a torus, w/Ctrl+Shift or stuff like that...
@Justo Sorry, I meant it has a Wondermesh-like ability to adjust parameters after creation. I don't really use Qblocker, to be honest. I find it a bit fiddly. I just updated thelatest today to see if it was much better, but it still is a bit fiddly. I much prefer the idea of your scripts: select a face>hit a hotkey. Much more efficient for blocking in. Hopefully you'll release a little addon...............
So thanks for the help last time over uv'ing. I may need some pointers on another topic. Sometimes, i have to hand-LOD assets, I did this with great ease in 3ds max, utilizing it's preserve uv's whilst moving verts in the viewport. Is there anything similar to this in Blender?
So thanks for the help last time over uv'ing. I may need some pointers on another topic. Sometimes, i have to hand-LOD assets, I did this with great ease in 3ds max, utilizing it's preserve uv's whilst moving verts in the viewport. Is there anything similar to this in Blender?
Unfortunately not. Not while moving (grabbing) but you can work around that by sliding if you press G twice (then you have to enable keep UVs in the pop up settings at least once before it will work (unless that's the default setting these days))
I have posted about this before, but haven't found any solution for this yet as it happens with multiple file formats exported from Blender 2.83. I am modeling my objects in Blender and then have to texture them in Substance Painter. In order to texture the objects in Painter efficiently, the objects/ meshes within a file need to be named correctly (to use the 'match by mesh name' feature).
Here is the problem. Blender seems to be unable to export the names of the individual objects correctly. In any of the file formats that Painter reads (I have tried OBJ, FBX and Alembic formats).
No matter what I set the mesh names to in Blender, the name is not written correctly into the exported file. If I e.g. name a mesh 'part_001_low' in Blender, export into Alembic, then re-import that Alembic into Blender, that same mesh is named 'part_001Shape'.
This makes Blender unusable for this kind of task, I always need to import the file exported from Blender into Modo, assign the correct mesh names there, and export again.
Has anyone come across this problem? Any solutions, some export setting I might have to set?
@wilson66 in the export setting in substance you can define the name of your exported item. If you delete the suggested name you should get the one you are looking fr.
@wilson66 in the export setting in substance you can define the name of your exported item. If you delete the suggested name you should get the one you are looking fr.
I don't get it. I need Blender to export the correct mesh names I have actually defined, not make up some new ones that make the exported file unusable in Painter.
@wilson66 I just tested in 2.82 and it didn't happen (blender > fbx > blender and blender > fbx > unity). Maybe its an issue with using pre release 2.83 or something to do with Alembic is changing the name?
Does anyone know how to toggle the visibility of the top bar (containing File, Edit, Render, etc...) and the bottom one (containing mesh info, mouse and tool controls), individually? The screen.screen_full_area command hides everything so it's useless to pinpoint specific panels. There's also show_region_hud, show_region_tool_header, show_region_toolbar & show_region_ui, but these do not include any of the above two afaik.
So thanks for the help last time over uv'ing. I may need some pointers on another topic. Sometimes, i have to hand-LOD assets, I did this with great ease in 3ds max, utilizing it's preserve uv's whilst moving verts in the viewport. Is there anything similar to this in Blender?
Unfortunately not. Not while moving (grabbing) but you can work around that by sliding if you press G twice (then you have to enable keep UVs in the pop up settings at least once before it will work (unless that's the default setting these days))
That's a shame. Well, I've been using the sliding vert technique and it feels too slow. I really hope Blender devs are reading this because it would be super helpful to have!
No matter what I set the mesh names to in Blender, the name is not written correctly into the exported file. If I e.g. name a mesh 'part_001_low' in Blender, export into Alembic, then re-import that Alembic into Blender, that same mesh is named 'part_001Shape'.
...
What you wrote above is that the mesh reimports with a different name. So from the description its alembic not blender. I dont have it open right now but I know the export setting gives you the option to 'export as' and it sounds like a duplicate name in the export sets dialog.
Hello all - anyone knows of reliable ways to do the following ?
These gifs come from the Retopoflow addon page but it is unfortunately broken for 2.8x (and also I am preferably looking for ways to perform these operations without having to rely on yet another exotic "mode").
Polystrip :
Fill with quad patch (better than the built-in GridFill) :
wilson66 said: No matter what I set the mesh names to in Blender, the name is not written correctly into the exported file. If I e.g. name a mesh 'part_001_low' in Blender, export into Alembic, then re-import that Alembic into Blender, that same mesh is named 'part_001Shape'.
@pior dude, seriously. I was massively disappointed how broken that plugin was, especially when it tries to enter it's retopo mode. Hung my pc for awhile.
@wilson66 For one I would not use alembic, if all you do is export to substance. I would stick with OBJ or FBX. Or even better GLTF, if substance supports it. And you need to make sure that you rename not only the object in blender, but also the mesh data itself.
@MrNinjutsu I think it is rather unlikely the devs will read anything in here. If you want them to read it, open a ticket or post in a more blender centric forum.
Checking out Blender's sculpting tools, I see that my brushes seem to have Unified Size set to On by default. In other words, whatever size I use for one brush, is transferred over to the next one I use, which is a behaviour I do not want.
AFAIK this option had been removed, yet my version of Blender seems to have it on by default and I do not know where to change this since the checkbox is no longer present. I haven't tried this in the official 2.82 version. Is this behaviour not modifiable anymore, or where should I be able to change this?
This is a train model I'm working on. I was wondering if there's a recommended way of arranging the child-parent set up.
currently everything in a single carriage (wheels/doors etc) is parent/child linked at the center of that carriage to an 'empty' with a title such as 'carriage_1', and all 4 of those 'carriage' empties are parented to an empty at the center of the train called 'train_1'.
because I want to animate this train coming out of a tunnel into a station, having the train bend and would look much better, so is there a way for the animations to set it up so one carriage leads and the other carriages follow?
Replies
@YaP That's probably the fastest one so far, nice! I can see it being cumbersome for certain pipe shapes that have a lot more zigzagging going on, but for simpler setups this is probably the best solution, thanks for sharing
@pior The skin method is great, and probably the best alternative when YaP's solution doesn't cut it. Thanks pior!
I find working with verts/edges much easier and faster than messing about with curves. Say, for instance, you have 2 pipe/wire sockets that you want a wire going between, I'll just duplicate the 2 cylinder caps>P separate selection>collapse them to a single vert each>select the verts and hit F to connect them>then just add verts in the middle of the new edge and edit the positions>add a subdiv and continue editing. This keeps everything easy to manage and edit and pipe/wire ends will always be in the exact position.
Also, Fluent has a great pipes/wires/bundles tool with options for twisting and adding sleeves and other effects.
That Quick Pipes addon is fantastic! Am I correct in saying that there is no way you can resize the curve points, as you would using the Skin modifier workflow? It's not a big deal though - the speed from using this is well worth it, I think.
Regarding Quickpipe though, I know you use Hops, so once your pipe is created you can select the object at any time and call the Hops menu to dynamically adjust segments/diameter.
Also, Maxi just added a QuickPipe feature to his interactive tools addon.
@Blaizer Looks like they're(BF devs) considering dropping Sub-div as a modifier altogether and making it a function inherent to the mesh. This would be a disaster for modeling, as far as I'm concerned. https://developer.blender.org/T68891
@MACHIN3 Thank you for mentioning that Alt+S tip! I've been trying to practice with your meshMachine tools a little bit every day now by the way (can't say I find the Fuse tool as useful as some of the others in the toolset). I know you've been very busy with Decals for now. Keep being awesome you goddamn rockstar.
Does my example make sense?
In modo, we can toggle subbdivision in a selection of polygons, or globally with a key (tab). We also have render/viewport iterations in the mesh properties.
If they add this feature and has a good perfomance in viewports, modo will have its days counted.
Another instance is the new Eevee viewport, which is fantastic for some stuff but has obviously not been fully tested (and much less worked on) by any game animators, since its performance crawls when handling skeletal meshes and it gets even worse if normalmaps are applied. Same goes for the decision earlier in 2.8 to use non-colored icons, probably made by someone very new to UI/UX design who fell in love with his own work. Same for the change in click behavior in 2.8 making selection sluggish. And so on. It will always happen.
I think it's really important to keep this human aspect in mind, and *never* putting any hope in future releases and/or announced features. It's much healthier for ones mental health to just stick to what works rather than hopping on a new bandwagon just because it's brand new. That way one doesn't get frustrated or disappointed each time features get broken or badly implemented. Thankfully enough no one is forcing or pushing anyone to use this or that version ( ... and that to me is the one feature that makes this software superior to anything else out there, despite all the flaws).
Furthermore, modo 14 will launch soon and my hopes are very low, it won't be a great release (the reworked bevel/chamfer system is worse than Blender's as far as i know). I still use a very old version of modo and i don't plan to upgrade because i will have too many features broken (mostly very useful scripts).
Modo for example, only excels in subdivision modeling, the other features are like incomplete or are very simple or basic (so they are useless for me). The same happens with too many features in Blender, they are there, but they are uncomplete or they result to me useless due to a lack of perfomance or quality. I will always prefer the software with less hassle to do things, with fewer clicks, and Blender for non-subidivision models is a great choice, but only with add-ons (Speedflow for example). The standalone version of Blender is the most basic thing i have ever seen for 3D. Truespace had powerful features and it's a dead software.
There are too many people in the Blender Development with different ideas, and they all think theirs are the best. Development is going fine but very slow. Sometimes we have steps backwards, such as the issue with subdivision modeling, or negative extrusions type sketchup (there was a great add-on for blender 2.79), but in general i think they are doing fine.
I'm customed to get
If at the end, we can't toggle subdivisions on a selection of polygons like in modo (that is very basic), i will make suggestions in order to change that. And if i'm not heard, i will keep using the best app i'm using today for my needs, modo.
@Justo, yes this feature in Hops did a similar thing to my jaw when I discovered it first.
@Blaizer I don't do much sub-D modeling these days as I've moved my high/low workflow to a pure polymodeling with baked round corners so I don't feel the pain as much as you. However, the performance all round in Blender starts to really suffer in a lot of other areas too once the scene starts to become more involved. It's so important that the devs get this sorted this year, but at least it's being activerly wored on across multiple areas. Could be a few years though. It took Max many years to get decent performance after the XBR nightmare in 2012. It's only now just coming together after 8 years. Let's hope it doesn't take that long............
I am adding screenshot of maya's pie menu because I would like to achieve something like that:
Edit: Found this answer, where they do it with a cone. I copied the code, but Blender's throwing at me an error at line 25:
"TypeError: In place element-wise multiplication: not supported between 'Quaternion' and 'Quaternion' types"
Now I'm wondering how I could scale the primitives being created...If I do this with a very small face for example, the current primitives with the scale of 1 would be too big. Looking around now to see if I can find a way to get the dimensions of the selected face, and somehow apply it to the primitive, so that it is more or less around the same size.
ob = bpy.context.object
me = ob.data
bm = bmesh.from_edit_mesh(me)
sel_faces = [f for f in bm.faces if f.select]
if sel_faces:
sel_face = sel_faces[0]
avg_edge_len = sel_face.calc_perimeter() / len(sel_face.edges)
face_center = sel_face.calc_center_median_weighted()
face_normal = sel_face.normal
up = mathutils.Vector((0,0,1))
q_rot = face_normal.rotation_difference(up)
bpy.ops.object.mode_set(mode='OBJECT')
bpy.ops.mesh.make_wtube()
wonder_ob = bpy.context.object
wonder_ob.data.wData.rad_1 = avg_edge_len / 2
wonder_ob.data.wData.siz_z = avg_edge_len
wonder_ob.data.wData.cent = False
wonder_ob.location = face_center
wonder_ob.rotation_mode = 'QUATERNION'
wonder_ob.rotation_quaternion = wonder_ob.rotation_quaternion @ q_rot.inverted()
Edit: Whereas it seems to work perfectly with cylinders and cylinders, for some reason boxes and planes are coming out way big (and in the box' case, not scaled uniformly). Do you know why?
It's using the edge length and this differs greatly between a cylinder and a box
Your script is very useful. Are you just calling prims from hotkeys?
Keyhydra in Max has this same feature with multi-tap press. 1tap for plane.....double tap for cube.....etc. and mouse wheel plus mod keys for parameter changes. I wish Blender had multi tap hotkeys.
I downloaded QBlocker just now and played around with it. It's nice - I can see the ability to set a working plane being pretty useful. AFAIK it doesn't implement wondermesh's primitives, but the objects it creates do have parametric values you can tweak after creation. The box however doesn't have any for segments, and the sphere has a global value which alters everything, whereas wondermesh has separate values for segments and rings.
I think for the time being I'll test the waters with these scripts I bashed together though. I like the ability to be able to press a button and bam, the primitive is done and there. No need to hit the hotkey, first click to set diameter, second click for height (wasnt a big fan of this in Max either), etc...With QBlocker you can also hold Ctrl+Shift and drag-click to create uniformly-scaled primitives, but again, if I know I want to do this anyway most of the times, I would rather press one button and have the object be there already, than to remember which 2-3 keys I need to hold down and whatever else comes after it haha.
Yeah, they're mapped to a single button in my logitech mouse (it has 12+ buttons lol). Default hotkey makes cube, w/Ctrl sphere, w/Shift Cylinder, w/Alt Plane. I have it mapped like this in Maya and Max too, so it's easy to remember (and fast) no matter which app I'm working in. I could probably add more primitives too, like a torus, w/Ctrl+Shift or stuff like that...
I am modeling my objects in Blender and then have to texture them in Substance Painter. In order to texture the objects in Painter efficiently, the objects/ meshes within a file need to be named correctly (to use the 'match by mesh name' feature).
Here is the problem. Blender seems to be unable to export the names of the individual objects correctly. In any of the file formats that Painter reads (I have tried OBJ, FBX and Alembic formats).
No matter what I set the mesh names to in Blender, the name is not written correctly into the exported file. If I e.g. name a mesh 'part_001_low' in Blender, export into Alembic, then re-import that Alembic into Blender, that same mesh is named 'part_001Shape'.
This makes Blender unusable for this kind of task, I always need to import the file exported from Blender into Modo, assign the correct mesh names there, and export again.
Has anyone come across this problem? Any solutions, some export setting I might have to set?
These gifs come from the Retopoflow addon page but it is unfortunately broken for 2.8x (and also I am preferably looking for ways to perform these operations without having to rely on yet another exotic "mode").
Polystrip :
Fill with quad patch (better than the built-in GridFill) :
Thanks !
AFAIK this option had been removed, yet my version of Blender seems to have it on by default and I do not know where to change this since the checkbox is no longer present. I haven't tried this in the official 2.82 version. Is this behaviour not modifiable anymore, or where should I be able to change this?
EDIT: Ok, it's in the Options dropdown menu.
I love how blender coming from 2.79 looked like a program that was made in someones garage and now a program from the future.