>As I said, you have separate tessellation-settings for editing and rendering. When doing CA, always leave the editing tessellation at 0, because the subdivided skin that Encage produces won’t update with the bone-deformations.
Nuts. So with Encage, I have to do a test render whenever I want to see what my deformation looks like? I mean, “set the tesselation at 0” seems pretty much the same as “work with a lo-res proxy and hope for the best.” My goal here is to be as interactive as possible, so that’s actually a step backward. I think I’d rather work with a poly-heavy model than have to constantly be doing test renders.
>Encage will only do Catmull-Clark subdivision with quads. It also uses another sub-d scheme called “Loop” that only works with triangles…
(Side note: this is pretty standard, as far as I can tell, among SDS modelers, although Lightwave uses “Loop” or something like it on any surface that’s all quads and tris. (Catmull-Clark on n-sided polys is slated for the next release of Lightwave.))
With “Loop,” does Encage automatically triangulate the entire surface of any mesh that’s not already all-triangles? I can definitely see that giving, well, “very different results.”
Thanks for the advice. I’d definitely be willing to pay some decent money ($US300-ish) for solid implementation of subdivisions within Animator. But from what you’ve just described, it sounds like Encage is not really all the way there yet.
GM
