Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

buaacyw.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#51

Post by ramses0 »

alexvitkov wrote: post #33
ramshanker wrote: post #25

I am all in for any development in this domain. Just to spread some sense of scale, We recently processed (manually) the point cloud scan of one of the ( So the scale shown in this paper feels like toys! Not undermining the effort at all. We need to start somewhere anyway. For the same reason, I feel puzzled looking at Industrial scenes in Video Games. They are like 3 order of magnitude simplified compared to a real…

Real life castles were designed to withstand a siege, video game castles are designed to give off a castle vibe. Once you've achieved that you stop adding stuff, as anything beyond that just creates problems - you start killing performance, visibility starts to suffer, it's not clear what's interactive and what is decoration, gameplay starts to take a hit as the AI and player start getting stuck in the clutter, etc,…

A personal pet-peeve of mine is "movies that feature an airplane flying away and turning left off into the sunset..."

ThEy NeVeR AniMaTe The FlAps!!

It's like you'd have an animated motorcycle scene and they don't turn the handlebars or make the bike lean when going around a corner. Like, the graphics are _soooo_ good but then they make the danged plane turn and immersion breaks (for me).

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#53

Post by Animats »

Hm. I tried the online demo,

https://huggingface.co/spaces/Yiwen-ntu/MeshAnything

on the provided sample "hat". I tried with and without checking "Preprocess with marching cubes" and "Random Sample". Both outputs had holes in the output mesh where the original did not.

Am I doing this wrong, or is the algorithm buggy?

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#54

Post by yazzku »

obsoletehippo wrote: post #29

I like how the Social Impact paragraph notes reduced labor costs, yay! Not e.g., reduced need for artists, so you're all out of a job.

"Our method points to a promising approach for the automatically generation of Artist-Created Meshes, which has the potential to significantly reduce labor costs in the 3D industry, thereby facilitating advancements in industries such as gaming, film, and the metaverse. However, the reduced cost of obtaining 3D artist-created meshes could also lead to potential criminal activities."

That last statement is worded in such a weird way, lol. Funny Chinese->English transliteration.

"The FBI has issued a warning for potential criminal activity resulting from the automatic generation of low-poly models. The public is advised to minimize outdoors exposure and report any suspicious activity."

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#56

Post by andybak »

BoredPositron wrote: post #49
andybak wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have generated two models and they consisted of nothing but triangular faces.

Mate I really don't know how to help you but even on the examples in the pdf there are clearly n-gons. In 5 of my 10 test there were n-gons. There are always starfishes with 5 or more connected verts. If you want to nitpick on the wording go ahead but these meshes are shite.

I wasn't picking a fight or scoring points. This isn't Reddit and I'm a grown adult. I'm trying to understand what you're saying and maybe learn something in the process.

> In 5 of my 10 test there were n-gons. There are always starfishes with 5 or more connected verts.

Ok. So you are basing your definition on the number of edges that meet at a vertex. My understanding was that the important metric was "number of edges on a given face"

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#57

Post by rurban »

Lichtso wrote: post #34
andybak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only see tris. It's quite rare to see .obj files with anything except triangles. Or do you mean something like "contains implied ngons because of the way coplanar tri faces are arranged"?

When working with meshes what you generally want is is quads, not triangles. The reason is that quads form nice closed loops. Further more you would only allow quads to meet in 3, 4, or 5 edges per vertex. The 4 edges per vertex is the "normal" case that most of your mesh should have, it causes a regular grid of parabolic (euclidian) geometry with neutral curvature. Then patches of these meet in vertices with 3 edges…

Generally you would prefer nurbs over quads. But your mesher and viewer needs to be good.

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#58

Post by Stevvo »

bhouston wrote: post #37

Definitely the best result for low polygon creation I've seen. Great job! Still triangles rather than polygons, but we are getting closer. The end goal should be: 1) Polygons, mostly 4 sided, rather than triangles. 2) Edge smoothness/creases to separate hard coders from soft corners. (Which when combined with polygons enables SubD support: https://graphics.pixar.com/opensubdiv/docs/subdivision_surfa... ) 3) UV for te…

I feel like maybe CAD would be easier? You only need represent form/edges, rather than meet all the requirements that you have for using a model for games/rendering.

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#59

Post by neutrinobro »

bognition wrote: post #39
bhouston wrote: post #37

Definitely the best result for low polygon creation I've seen. Great job! Still triangles rather than polygons, but we are getting closer. The end goal should be: 1) Polygons, mostly 4 sided, rather than triangles. 2) Edge smoothness/creases to separate hard coders from soft corners. (Which when combined with polygons enables SubD support: https://graphics.pixar.com/opensubdiv/docs/subdivision_surfa... ) 3) UV for te…

why are polygons preferred over triangles?

They are not. Polygons are a terrible representation since unlike triangles they do not cleanly represent a unique planar surface. With more than 3 points you will always have an ambiguity (or several) about which (numerical) plane corresponds to the actual face. For some graphics applications this may or may not matter much, but it is very important for anything using the mesh for physical computation.

Re: MeshAnything – Converts 3D representations into efficient 3D meshes

#60

Post by rrradical »

mdorazio wrote: post #40
bognition wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why are polygons preferred over triangles?

It's much easier and cleaner to subdivide quads to refine shapes when modeling. For example, you can split the quads along an entire edge to get a new clean edge for manipulation (ex. to bevel it). If you try to do the same with triangles, you get a jagged mess.

I believe also quads also deform better during animation.
Post reply on HN