Transcript:
Hello, my name is Miles. Welcome to another blender of 2.8 our tutorial beginner tutorial. I would say I want to show you another cool modifier. You can use in your modifier stack. But for some reason, I blended kept on crashing, obviously, because this is still in development and there’s there’s still a lot of bugs, but yeah, also trying to because I’ve recorded this story about three times now and it kept on crashing, but if it crashes when I’m making these, I will just demonstrate where I’m going because is the same trick. I used to make this cloth. You can see it has quite a number of quite a good amount of wrinkles are detailed wrinkles without that much resolution. When you go under it and yes, so I just so what I’m trying to demonstrate is how you can get that much wrinkles without too much resolution. Because you see we had. I made two simulations here. Close simulations here are this. Let me see! Hi, this this here it also ha doesn’t. Have that much resolution. I was a bit. Yeah, it doesn’t have that much resolution Come compared to what it would have without what I did so anyway. Yeah, so if it doesn’t work here in this. Oh, maybe the try to. They must try to explain it from there, but anyway, so let’s try this again. Our turn on random colors and that maybe change this for a sphere, A UV sphere and go to the physics tab and turn this into a collision object and these into a cloth object now can have some subdivisions like that and we can hate play to simulate what we want, and maybe we can turn on self collision here, so in the cloth modifier tenant, so collision so that the clothes event doesn’t go through itself. I can also turn on a smooth shading, so let’s assume you are happy with this. I don’t know the problem Is that when I add more resolution, then it tends to crush, so I don’t want to do that, but let’s see. Maybe that was too much, yeah? I think those are good wrinkles there. So let’s say you have this and it’s what you want. You can apply the cloth, modifier and most. I’m gonna apply. This blender crashes, so they see okay did. Thanks, so you see the amount of resolution you have there, but you see, it’s also somewhere where you don’t need it like you. Don’t need this much resolution to create. How this kind of detail here? You don’t need that much resolution here. You don’t need that much resolution here, and I don’t know where you see. The polygon count in this version of blender. I think it’s here, so let’s move. These can see. This has a four hundred and four thousand something and this. Okay, so I think it’s calculating the entire all the objects in the scene. It’s not just I anyway. There is a modifier called the decimate modifier. Where is that decimate modifier? And you can use it to reduce the polygon count of of the vertex of the of the object without losing that much this beetle so and you can use the ratio here to reduce other polygon count. I can see it down here. This shows the entire the number. They total amount of vertices or polygon count for both selected for both for all objects in the scene, and we currently have two meshes in the same, but to do this amount of vertices. So if if I’d let this you should only show that what it says in this object. And so if we reduce the ratio here, you can see the total amount of what says reduces as well and let me make a duplicate here so that you can see what? I’m doing this doesn’t have the modifier. This is the! Can we overlay wireframe? Maybe you can. What, my meter? I want America but can easily show. We have a polygon, count the polygons. So you see the amount of detail we have and the amount of polygons we have there. If we use the decimate modifier, you can see it reduces that those polygons are without while trying to maintain the detail so you can see. Its reducing Polygons were removing the polygons that are non middle needed in different areas. You can see reducing that, and you can remove as much as you want, but the more you remove the more detail, you will lose as well, but what? I usually do if I have this map Modifier. I can. Also, you can also add a subdivision modifier, and that will kind of hide kind of bring back some of the detail or compensate for the lost detail, lets. See, where did I turn off wire from Turn on Wireframe? You see sure why this is like a bit? Okay, you see, this has less polygon counts, but there isn’t that much detail lost from this. Obviously this doesn’t have a subdivision for. South is better. If you add that so that we are looking at the same things and see for the amount of polygons you have removed there. Isn’t that much difference? Maybe around here, but yeah, so if you happy with what you have, you can apply the basement modifier, and you see now the amount of polygons we have let me first. Reload this. It’s not that much as this now, which would take a lot of time to render. And if you have a lot of objects in your scene, you will. It will slow down your viewport. I see, and if you turn on a subsurf modifier, you can see, it makes it even look better. So if you increase this see. I know, so I think oh, did we how smooth shading? I think we have smooth shading already. So, yeah, that’s how you do it, so that’s the same thing. I did here because without using this model. The dismayed modifier this mesh would have a lot of polygons and it even now it has a lot, but imagine how much details how much our polygons if needed are to simulate. How this cloth, these wrinkles here. Yeah, so that’s how you can use the decimate modifier to reduce a polygon count. It doesn’t lead. It doesn’t only work on close simulations. You can also use it, use it on other objects like this monkey head. Let’s make a duplicate of these. The we let’s turn on overlays again where frames turn on this map modifier, reduce and see. Yes, you can also use this to make a low poly objects that you see that style of renders that you see, so it’s a cool modify. Think you can also change the type of the type of unsub division. You want, yeah, thank thank you. Make sure to leave. A like. Subscribe are the way to support the channel, thank you!