Noticing when I feed in a mesh, Frost samples the vertices and everything moves along as if the vertices were pointcloud.
Cool.
BUT… When PRT Volume considers a mesh input, it converts the mesh to a level set and fills it.
SO… Would it be possible to get (now or later) a means of generating a level set meshing from the mesh, not the vertices as pointclouds? As PRT Volume does?
Why? If I want to remesh a surface, using Frost will make a thick shell around the surface as the level set is essentially “hollow”. It doesn’t fit the mesh at all, but sits above AND below (meaning we get faces put on the inside). This is perfectly normal and correct based on the vertices as pointcloud concept, but it’s not ideal in all cases. So it would be nice to have a second type of mesh input.
Imagine a case like this… I have a fluid sim from RF where particles are poured into a cup. I can Frost the particles, and it looks good. But it potentially pokes though the cup mesh. So what if Frost could take the cup mesh itself, convert to level set (as PRT Volume does) and subtract that from the particle voxel level set? You’d get the surface clipped to the object, right?
Or a case like this… I have a effect where an ice cube needs to melt onto a table. I COULD build the ice object out of super high spatial density particles and have ones near the surface melt off, but it would be faster to model the ice as a surface mesh and just emit particles from the surface. So I have a giant mesh and a few rivulets of particles sliding over it and off onto a table. If Frost could union the mesh level set and the particle level set, I would end up with a mesh that would look correct for rendering without any unsightly seams or voids.
- Chad
