Disclaimer; I am fully aware that my request amounts to “Why is parametric hard surface modeling not the same as wireframe modeling?”
Problem to solve: Well behaved shapr3d models of curved surfaces with windows cut through them turn into a crazy mess of triangles when exported to obj/usdz.
Hoped for, pie in the sky solution: Shapr3d to vectorize down to quad based geometry where possible, so that shading/subdivision surface modifier in blender, etc is not all weird and messed up.
- See Happy Model in Shapr3d
This is a lathed, then shelled, then cut through object resembling a certain franchise’s favorite space ship.
- Exported to obj, opened in blender:
Brief description of the outcomes that you expect from this feature:
Topology that looks like this: (Not my work)
If this is considered, I’d also hope that Shapr3d could identify candidates for edge loops, sharp seams, etc based on the geometry in Shapr3d
What can’t you achieve without this feature?
To be honest, the ability to use blender without having to learn wireframe modeling. I fully admit this is a useful skill that I am just being a dummy about because I only understand shapr3d. I thought other people might benefit though.
Is this a workflow blocker for you? Is this why you can’t use Shapr3D for work? Is this slowing you down?
I can still use shapr3d to make complex stuff just fine, it gets dicey when I want to render it and the topology is all funny. There are various re-topology add-ins for blender, but they all seem to think I want to make some sort of weird organic shape instead of hard defined surfaces, so this is the kind of thing I think needs to happen at time of export.
Thank you again, and I understand if this gets filed way in the back of your backlog. I figure this is less work than asking shapr3d to implement full global illumination and node based PBR/BSDF shader system though! 