After thinking about this for a bit I think the main strength of this modifier would come from it's arbitrary topology mapping. Others have brought up subdivided -> low-res mappings and vice versa, which would be a big first step in this.
After that - and perhaps I'm thinking way outside the scope here - it would be amazing if we could morph even something as simple as a subdivided plane into a face e.g. (I'm thinking projection along (an) axis now). At that point I think there would be more than enough differences to and advantages over shapekeys for it to warrant its own modifier hands-down. For me personally the one-on-one mapping of vertex positions would seem like the biggest workflow challenge this modifier doesn't yet solve, and is what keeps me slightly wary of this being a modifier that adds an extra layer of complexity for relatively little gain. If all we want to achieve is shapekeys in the modifier stack, I would probably vote for just that: a shapekeys modifier that simply can't be placed below topology-changing (adding or removing) modifiers in the stack. Just my $0.02, Patrick > Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 18:13:14 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] New Modifier : Morph Target > > Hi, > > As you probably remember 1 year ago I was working on my own version of > "Morph > Modifier" > (http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?289299-Morph-Modifier > but because of a lack of time never got a chance to "rewrite" it to > implementable version. Recently (actually week ago) I started sorting my > code a little bit. If you are not in a hurry I will be able to > "present" some patches soon. > > As I remember functionality was very remotely duplicated and I am not > sure if my modifier would be ever good enough for actual > implementation, but I would appreciate a week or two to be able to > compare. > > Cheers, > > On Tue, 27 May 2014 10:20:08 -0500 > k k <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Juan > > > > The idea is a bit like displacement modifiier in the context of > > using with subdivision modifier. Instead of using a texture map for > > positions, we will use an actual higher res mesh to morph to. For > > example this can be very useful for animating a low res character > > then applying highres details from a mesh, instead of using a > > displacement maps. In that respect the results will be much more > > precise which can be effectively used for places where mesh precision > > is important (ie landscapes, character interaction) and the final > > look wont be an approximation like displacement would produce. I have > > not tried it but I do not think that we have vector displacements atm. > > > > > > Pose space, sounds good :) > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > 27.05.2014, 08:05, "Juan Pablo Bouza" <[email protected]>: > > > Cool Kursad! > > > > > > Yes, in the procedure I'm thinking of, the subdivision level / > > > vertex count of the subsurf modifier that is before MTM should be > > > fixed. Then you could apply a second subsurf modifier after MTM. > > > > > > Well, anyway I think you should concentrate on getting the pose > > > space working first!! :D > > > > > > Cheers! > > >> From: [email protected] > > >> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 00:24:33 -0600 > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] New Modifier : Morph Target > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
