Quote - What's needed now is more refined "steering" of the normals, not any kind of blanket approach like spherical or capsule-shaped normals.  That would be less refined.  The little test I posted was just to illustrate that one needn't be reliant on the existing normals of the mesh, as well as to illustrate that the main complaint I've long had about the Classic TDMT method is actually that very reliance on the existing paths of the normals.  What we basically end up doing here is using the closest vertices results to screen candidate tripolys and refine the paths of the normals for the raycasting.  Which is fantastic.  I wish we'd thought of something like this three years ago.  :lol:

...and, from an earlier message....

...For the normals, I'm not sure it would average out as desired.  We're determining one path with these, which will settle on the target tripoly.  It needs to be steered with care...

...I just wanted to comment on this, because your first assumption (for the second comment, above) was that the ray-cast was generating those bad eyelid results, but don't forget that it was where the ray-cast failed, in that case.  My point is that you seem to think (or it can be misread) that the current averaging may not be desired (or may even be specifically NOT desired)... my opinion is that it IS helping.  In other words, it IS being done with some care and in an attempt to refine the situation.

Feel free to try whatever you want now though - I'm anxious as always to see any results (and also curious to see if any of those poor results were actually just dropped verts).

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.