3 ms·

Such a silly argument. Fixing topology is a nearly solved problem in geometry processing. (Or just start with a good topology and 'paste' a texture onto it like

by nuz 2y ago

Such a silly argument. Fixing topology is a nearly solved problem in geometry processing. (Or just start with a good topology and 'paste' a texture onto it like they develop techniques for here.)

explaininjs 2y ago
No… it’s not. But if you know something I don’t the 5 primes will certainly be happy to pay you handsomely for the implementation!
- nuz 2y ago
  https://github.com/wjakob/instant-meshes https://github.com/wjakob/instant-meshes
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - explaininjs 2y ago
    A piece of software that hasn’t been touched in 5 years, let alone adopted in any professional production environment? Cool…
    - portaouflop 2y ago
      AFAICT it’s used in professional applications and software does not need to be constantly updated, especially if it’s not for the web.
      - explaininjs 2y ago
        If the claim was that the problem was solved, sure it might make sense that the package does not need to be touched (in reality the field isn’t as slow as you presume, but I digress). Instead, the claim is that it’s “nearly^{TM}” solved, so the proof being an abandoned repo from half a decade ago actually speaks volumes: it’s solved except for the hard part, and nobody knows how to solve the hard part.
        portaouflop 2y ago
        Well yea I wasn’t claiming the problem is solved, that was GP. I don’t think you can truly “solve” any problem if you think about it.
        explaininjs 2y ago
        I'm talking satisfying business needs not philosophical mumbo jumbo. If you need a model to move, you give it to a rigger. If the mesh is bad, they will first need to remesh it or the rigging wont work right. This is the problem. They will solve this problem using a manual, labor intensive, process. It's not particularly difficult, any 3D artist considering themselves a professional ought to be able to do it. But it's not the sort of thing where you just press a button and turn some knobs and you're done either. It takes a lot of work, and in particularly bad cases it's easier to just start from scratch - remeshing a garbage mesh is indeed harder than modeling from scratch in many cases. Once either of these mechanisms have been applied, the problem will be solved and the rigger can move on to rigging. So yes, algorithms exist that pretend to remesh, and every professional modeling systems has one built in (because your sales guys don't want to be the ones without one), but professionals do not use them in production environments (my original claim, if you recall) because their results are so bad. Indeed I'm told several meme accounts exist dedicated to how badly they screw things up when folks do try to take the shortcuts. If this project was aiming to solve the problem (which is possible, as I have just explained), they would not have given up 5 years ago. Because it sure isn't solved now.
  - spookie 2y ago
    I love that tool but it really doesn't fix bad topology. It gets you somewhere closer, but not a fix. Moreover, depending on what you have at hand, the resolution of your remeshing might destroy a LOT of detail or is unable to accomodate thin sections. Retopo isn't a solved problem. It only is for really basic, convex meshes.
RicoElectrico 2y ago
It's an essential skill for reading scientific papers to notice what isn't there. It's as important as what is there. In my field, analog IC design, if we face a wall, we often do some literature review with a colleague and more often than not, results are not relevant for commercial application. Forget about Monte Carlo, sometimes even there aren't full PVT corners.
- jampekka 2y ago
  This is indeed a side effect from research papers being read more outside academia (which is strictly a good thing in itself). In research one learns that most (almost all) papers oversell their results and a lot of stuff is hidden in the "Limitations" section. This is a significant problem, but not that big a problem within academia as everybody, at least within the field, knows to take the results with a grain of salt. But those outside academia, or outside the field, often don't take this into account. Academic papers should be read a bit like marketing material or pitch decks.
zemo 2y ago
depends what you're talking about and what your criteria is. In gamedev, studios typically use a retopology tool like topogun (https://www.topogun.com/ https://www.topogun.com/) to aid in the creation of efficient topologies, but it's still a manual task, as different topologies have different tradeoffs in terms of poly count, texture detail, options for how the model deforms when animated, etc. For example you may know that you're working on a model of a player character in a 3rd person game where the camera is typically behind you, so you want to spend more of your budget on the _back_ of the model than the _front_, because the player is typically looking at their character's back. If your criteria is "find the minimum number of polygons", sure, it's solved. That's just one of many different goals, and not the goal that is typically used by gamedev, which I assume to be a primary audience of this research.
- efilife 2y ago
  Fyi, we use asterisks to put emphasis on text on HN
TrevorJ 2y ago
Hard disagree, as someone in the industry.

by nuz 2y ago

Such a silly argument. Fixing topology is a nearly solved problem in geometry processing. (Or just start with a good topology and 'paste' a texture onto it like they develop techniques for here.)

explaininjs 2y ago

No… it’s not. But if you know something I don’t the 5 primes will certainly be happy to pay you handsomely for the implementation!

nuz 2y ago
https://github.com/wjakob/instant-meshes https://github.com/wjakob/instant-meshes
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- explaininjs 2y ago
  A piece of software that hasn’t been touched in 5 years, let alone adopted in any professional production environment? Cool…
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    AFAICT it’s used in professional applications and software does not need to be constantly updated, especially if it’s not for the web.
    - explaininjs 2y ago
      If the claim was that the problem was solved, sure it might make sense that the package does not need to be touched (in reality the field isn’t as slow as you presume, but I digress). Instead, the claim is that it’s “nearly^{TM}” solved, so the proof being an abandoned repo from half a decade ago actually speaks volumes: it’s solved except for the hard part, and nobody knows how to solve the hard part.
      - portaouflop 2y ago
        Well yea I wasn’t claiming the problem is solved, that was GP. I don’t think you can truly “solve” any problem if you think about it.
        explaininjs 2y ago
        I'm talking satisfying business needs not philosophical mumbo jumbo. If you need a model to move, you give it to a rigger. If the mesh is bad, they will first need to remesh it or the rigging wont work right. This is the problem. They will solve this problem using a manual, labor intensive, process. It's not particularly difficult, any 3D artist considering themselves a professional ought to be able to do it. But it's not the sort of thing where you just press a button and turn some knobs and you're done either. It takes a lot of work, and in particularly bad cases it's easier to just start from scratch - remeshing a garbage mesh is indeed harder than modeling from scratch in many cases. Once either of these mechanisms have been applied, the problem will be solved and the rigger can move on to rigging. So yes, algorithms exist that pretend to remesh, and every professional modeling systems has one built in (because your sales guys don't want to be the ones without one), but professionals do not use them in production environments (my original claim, if you recall) because their results are so bad. Indeed I'm told several meme accounts exist dedicated to how badly they screw things up when folks do try to take the shortcuts. If this project was aiming to solve the problem (which is possible, as I have just explained), they would not have given up 5 years ago. Because it sure isn't solved now.
- spookie 2y ago
  I love that tool but it really doesn't fix bad topology. It gets you somewhere closer, but not a fix. Moreover, depending on what you have at hand, the resolution of your remeshing might destroy a LOT of detail or is unable to accomodate thin sections. Retopo isn't a solved problem. It only is for really basic, convex meshes.

RicoElectrico 2y ago

It's an essential skill for reading scientific papers to notice what isn't there. It's as important as what is there. In my field, analog IC design, if we face a wall, we often do some literature review with a colleague and more often than not, results are not relevant for commercial application. Forget about Monte Carlo, sometimes even there aren't full PVT corners.

jampekka 2y ago
This is indeed a side effect from research papers being read more outside academia (which is strictly a good thing in itself). In research one learns that most (almost all) papers oversell their results and a lot of stuff is hidden in the "Limitations" section. This is a significant problem, but not that big a problem within academia as everybody, at least within the field, knows to take the results with a grain of salt. But those outside academia, or outside the field, often don't take this into account. Academic papers should be read a bit like marketing material or pitch decks.

zemo 2y ago

depends what you're talking about and what your criteria is. In gamedev, studios typically use a retopology tool like topogun (https://www.topogun.com/ https://www.topogun.com/) to aid in the creation of efficient topologies, but it's still a manual task, as different topologies have different tradeoffs in terms of poly count, texture detail, options for how the model deforms when animated, etc. For example you may know that you're working on a model of a player character in a 3rd person game where the camera is typically behind you, so you want to spend more of your budget on the _back_ of the model than the _front_, because the player is typically looking at their character's back. If your criteria is "find the minimum number of polygons", sure, it's solved. That's just one of many different goals, and not the goal that is typically used by gamedev, which I assume to be a primary audience of this research.

efilife 2y ago
Fyi, we use asterisks to put emphasis on text on HN

TrevorJ 2y ago

Hard disagree, as someone in the industry.