Suggestion about topologies and targets

[Teto]

As discussed on Patreon (for all users, it's just $2 a month, it's nothing) the actual issue with MH is that its model is outdated, it should have way more polys (like 2x) to fit the actual needs the users already have. Character Creator has better precision, but fo me it's not good enough and is a pain to use whan you want to make your own targets. And for the moment their body is not perfectly symmetrical.

But I do know that the process to change the model would be tedious and very long, and some guys woudn't be happy with the new one anyway.

So my suggestion is very "simple" to avoid any problem in the future : Allow to make targets on topologies. And accessories like teeth :
- I could have a 8M-polys-body, with horns, wings, whatever, and make my own targets for this topology. I start with MH standard body, make a fairly accurate model I want, and finish it with my topology and associated targets.
- Do the same thing with teeth and eyes, that can add a lot of personality in a character.
I am aware that means to change the way targets are handled, because target would be attached to the topology it was made for. But this solution would solve many issues with actual MH :
- No need to update the actual model
- Everyone could now uses his own topology, with his particular needs, MH developers don't have to worry about it anymore.

But maybe it's impossible for technical reasons ?

[punkduck]

Hi

Well the problem of changing the base mesh will of course create a big impact especially for all those using it. This mesh is dependent with all features like rigging etc all targets are used on this mesh and most but not all targets also work on the helpers which are also part of the mesh. Also additional tools like MakeClothes and mhx2 exporter must be changed.

Our team programming the application (and also using it for scenes like I do) is rather small. I guess nearly all of us have a normal job and daily life ... so this is our hobby.

First we have to keep in mind how different the wishes of people working with MakeHuman are.

If you had ask me half a year ago, I tried to do more realism and hoped for additional geometry. Especially in shoulder reason. And the shaders should be like the principled one in Blender. And I hoped for shapekeys or additional bones to correct geometry. And jiggle bones of course.

Then I learned that other people used it for creation of fantasy and they hope for a more flexible mesh. And some want it smaller, because in smooth regions you don't need much geometry. And for a game/simulation a character with less vertices is faster. So of cause the MH team has to consider the whole range of users in future.

The last year the team tried to keep the system compatible with changing software and hardware requirements. This is a never ending story, because this will be always a problem. If you are ready with a topic, vendor abc introduces a new standard and we can do all the things again. Or the vendors try to keep their software proprietary and hide functionality.

Nevertheless I vote for more flexibility in future and did an experiment. I wrote an article about how this mesh can be used and new features can be added to the end of this mesh. So similar, like starting from vertex number xyz there are different topologies. I also figured out how I was able to determine if a skeleton could deal with non-existent verticies etc. So when you read the article you can see the limits but also ideas from a technical point of view. My idea is to create sth. like the target/skeleton "abc" can be used on the mesh "def" + additional topology "xyz". But it is still experimental, maybe it is a better way to use a set of targets if a mesh is built from base-mesh and two additional helper ones etc. For more flexibility we have to re-arrange a lot of stuff, like making things configurable (e.g. in coding configuration in JSON for e.g. data-exchange) ...

I hope the developers (and I am one since January) will have the time (and ideas) to create a concept for all these things. What we can't do (and I will not do) is to create sth. where we cannot reuse assets etc. This will create problems with the "old" users.

And the next version will of course not contain these ideas, there we have to fix all the problems from adapting to new standards and we have to work on a few neglected topics.

Before I, as the newbie (or should I say apprentice?), will change things in MH, I have to understand the complete software. Then the team has to find a "general agreement" on how we can proceed and reach more functionality. Otherwise it would end up in chaos.

Here is the article:

http://www.makehumancommunity.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=16927

In a way I tried to do a in-between thing to allow the characters to be in a simulator but also to create animated assets like wings and tail in a standard scene using Blender ...

[Teto]

Thanks for the article, very interesting and instructive.

And for the first part of your message, it's the meaning of my post : if we consider the actual body of MH as frozen (except for bones, that you are improving), and if we can put targets on accessories and topologies, the problem of the users' needs disappears, because they can make their own bodies that fit their needs, and the targets they want, to improve details that MH can't do (with standard targets).

I'm not a programmer, unfortunately, and I'm glad that newcomers are here to help. I've just watched the roadmap of Reallusion (about Character Creator 3) and it's not very encouraging : they'll add new features but don't seem to want to help users that prefer developing their own targets rather than buying bundles in the online shop...

Anyway, thanks for your comment, and stay focused on your work !

[joepal]

Your patreon post was very interesting. One idea that stuck with me, was the idea of having targets specific to certain proxies.

If this was implemented, it would void the need of changing the base mesh. Instead it would be possible to add a high-res proxy which would deform along with the base mesh, but to which we could attach extra targets. Think for example a "wrinkly face" target, which would be difficult to do with the base mesh as of today, but which would be possible with a higher resolution proxy mesh.

Sure, adding a layer with targets that only modify a specific proxy, would be complicated. But compared to replacing the base mesh, it'd be very doable.

[Teto]

Exactly.

As I'm not a programmer, I can't be affirmative for sure. But I think that to make this possible we basically have to :
- Link targets that are related to a specific proxy. OK, the file format must change a little, and main program must know to seek targets related to a proxy when it's loaded.
- "The center of deformation" for each target. The actual targets work like this, right ? So user should be able to create a point that is the center of deformation for the target. It could be the center of the perimeter of changed/selected polys/texels, or an arbitrary point chosen/created by user.

Am I wrong (don't beat me ! ) if I say that it's only what we need here ? (and a target tool made for Blender 2.8 )
I'm aware that it's a lot of work anyway !