Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. you are right, the boolean did not work. You would probably need more triangles to do the boolean, the eye you have there is very low-resolution. If you switch to flat shading in meshmixer, or turn on the wireframe, you will see it is not many faces. That is why the Remesh has "ripples" - it is a higher res mesh, but projected onto the low-res mesh you started with. The "smooth" version you see in the other images is not actually smooth (you can see the faceting in the first slice image, for example). It is just smooth shading, based on interpolating normals. So, the one with "ripples" would be a nearly identical shape when printed, even though it looks very different. If you do want it smoother, you could run the Smooth tool on the remeshed version. I would suggest that you try to make it more spherical first. For example if you just select the back half, and a bit of the rim, and run the Smooth tool and make it very smooth, it will actually puff outwards on the back. This will be a better shape to work with. You could also delete that eyeball entirely and put in a new sphere (it is just part of a sphere, from the looks of it). Regardless, you probably should shrink the socket to be as small as possible (or get rid of it entirely). You could use the sculpting brushes for that, or select most of it (make the selection brush large and click once in the middle, then right-drag until the orange comes out enough) and do an Erase/Fill. The issue is that the back wall is very thin, and it will be hard to get the boolean to not poke through. You probably also need more triangles on the eyelid to get a nice-looking result from the boolean. Remesh it up to a higher resolution. Hopefully you will find that the boolean works in that case.
  2. As Dim3nsioneer mentions, you can set the physical size of your model with the Unit/Scale tool. You can also scale using the Transform gizmo ('t' hotkey). Click and drag on the the little white box in the middle. If you are familiar with the old UI, the main change is that now many of the tools are in second-level menus that only appear once you have made a selection, above the selection tool parameters. Sorry about all the out-of-date tutorials, unfortunately meshmixer is made by a very small team and nobody has the job of writing documentation/tutorials.
  3. I wanted to follow up and thank you all for the feedback. We just released meshmixer 2.1, and there are a lot of improvements to the support workflow. In particular: 1) you can leave the tool, save/load a .mix file, and come back and continue manually editing the support 2) you can merge the multiple-overlapping-shells support structure into non-self-intersecting solids 3) your parameter settings are saved when you exit the tool 4) the sliders do a bit of rounding to a reasonable number of digits of precision 5) you can draw a 100% manual support structure, no need to auto-generate at all if you don't want to 6) you can draw posts that connect to the ground, which was not possible before We did also tweak the auto-generation algorithm quite a bit...it usually makes better structures now, but still does get stuck sometimes, so manual cleanup/tweaking will still be necessary. More to come!
  4. Very interesting thread. Please don't hesitate to meshmixer forum. As Illuminarti mentioned, I am actively working on this...actually I would say that what you are using now is probably best described as an early beta of the support generator. I can only print so many tests myself, I really do need people to describe their experiments so we can figure out what does and doesn't work. So, I hope you'll keep digging for those "sweet nuggets of gold"...
  • Create New...