Turbosmooth or Mesh Smooth

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  01 January 2013
Question Turbosmooth or Mesh Smooth

I've used both turbo smooth and mesh smooth, and the only difference I can see is that the poly count for mesh smooth is less. They both seem to deliver similar results. What's the differences between the two?
 
  01 January 2013
Mesh smooth is older but IMO has more control.
<edited for correctness>
Originally Posted by Bobo: TurboSmooth was never designed to replace all features of MeshSmooth, but to speed up the typical polygon modeling workflow where the whole quad-modeled mesh needs to be smoothed...



Personally (and admittedly) I don't model much, ie only when I need to, depending upon the topology one may be better suited than the other.

I am sure some mesh head can jump in and give you the exact reason to use one over the other, me it is just a matter of what keeps the flow of the mesh looking/behaving the way I want.
__________________
poof ~>Vimeo<~

Last edited by JohnnyRandom : 01 January 2013 at 11:50 PM.
 
  01 January 2013
Turbosmooth is slightly faster, it does not pass on mesh data in a stack, so if you have, say Edit Poly with creases set up, a TurboSmooth on top of that will crease properly, but if you add another Turbo/Mesh Smooth above it it will smooth universally.

Turbosmooth also does not like change in geometry, such as vertex weld or some other modifier that changes the number of verts will mess up Turbosmooth above it.
__________________
[Invivo Animation Reel]
 
  01 January 2013
The story was like this: MeshSmooth has indeed a lot of controls, and all the options including support of sub-selections, various smoothing modes etc. caused it to be relatively slow. It was also written in the days when there were no polygons in Max (before Max 4 introduced them and Max 5 and 6 made them usable).

So the TurboSmooth modifier was meant to be used in a typical workflow where the incoming mesh from the bottom of the stack is PolyMesh (not a TriMesh from an Editable Mesh - it works with that too, but it has to convert it internally triangles to polygons first).
Then the TurboSmooth outputs its result as a TriMesh because this is much faster to display in the viewports. Under these circumstances, it can be a few times faster than MeshSmooth when using heavy multi-polygon models.

As mentioned, TurboSmooth lacks most of the finer controls of MeshSmooth - it does not support smoothing only selected polygons and it implements only the NURMS algorithm, just to name a few.

So when all you want is the whole mesh smoothed using NURMS method without any fine tuning, TurboSmooth is the one to use. If you want finer controls, use MeshSmooth.

TurboSmooth was never designed to replace all features of MeshSmooth, but to speed up the typical polygon modeling workflow where the whole quad-modeled mesh needs to be smoothed...
__________________
Bobo
 
  01 January 2013
It's not only faster, but turbosmooth takes up less memory. So you can potentially subdivide a mesh a few more iterations with turbosmooth than you can with meshsmooth.

- Neil
 
  01 January 2013
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.