You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, it is possible that the mesh tracing creates some vertices very close together, depending on the settings, and that you do not notice this fact until you zoom in quite a bit. For example, if you turn the gun attachment into a mesh attachment and run a trace with the following settings, some very close vertices may be created:
Detail: 50
Concavity: 100
Refinement: 50
If you zoom in, you can see that the vertices are very close to each other like this:
Such vertices that are too close together sometimes interfere with the automatic calculation of weights. It would be desirable to automatically merge vertices within a certain range during the tracing calculation.
We already remove vertices close to each other (and very narrow spikes). I tried many times but wasn't able to get 2 vertices close like in your screenshot. Is it very rare?
Hmm, when I tried on my end, I was able to reproduce this condition in one try, so I thought it could be easily reproduced. However, I just tried again and could not reproduce the issue. I wish I could find a way to reproduce it reliably.
Currently, it is possible that the mesh tracing creates some vertices very close together, depending on the settings, and that you do not notice this fact until you zoom in quite a bit. For example, if you turn the gun attachment into a mesh attachment and run a trace with the following settings, some very close vertices may be created:
If you zoom in, you can see that the vertices are very close to each other like this:
Such vertices that are too close together sometimes interfere with the automatic calculation of weights. It would be desirable to automatically merge vertices within a certain range during the tracing calculation.
Related forum post:
https://esotericsoftware.com/forum/d/27986-%E5%85%B3%E4%BA%8E%E7%BD%91%E6%A0%BC%E7%BB%98%E5%88%B6%E6%9C%89%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD%E5%BC%95%E8%B5%B7%E6%97%A0%E6%B3%95%E8%AE%A1%E7%AE%97%E6%9D%83%E9%87%8D%E7%9A%84%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: