Hi! Before, DD created 2 files, named scene_mesh_textured.obj and scene_mesh_decimated_textured.obj, but now it only create the last one (decimated). I noticed the quality of this model is lower. I need the better obj. What i need to do? I this a bug?
2 Likes
Hi @Charles_Trindade, welcome! These are the files we are getting. Is it happening to you on all models? I do not see any reason why it should be limited.
Yes. It happens in all of my models. But last week it wasn’t like that.
My account is a test account. Could this be the reason?
1 Like
I wouldn’t think so if you have trial left. It is supposed to remain fully functional until then. @Andrew_Fraser, have you heard of this before?
@Charles_Trindade Full resolution OBJ exports are still supported. Check your resolution setting when you are exporting and as always feel free to reach out to the DroneDeploy support team for tailored assistance.
1 Like
There’s no such setting so I am not sure what was being referenced. It may be the resolution of the map itself. What is the max res on the Ortho that you can download. It may be too high to get anything better than what is considered decimated.
Hi @Charles_Trindade, during processing we downsample the final mesh to 4M faces if it is larger than that, mainly so that the 3D model loads quickly in the viewer. This limit should only come into effect for large maps (most maps have < 4M faces). Previously we had been saving the original full res .obj file in the same zip as the downsampled one, even though this was an identical copy for the majority of maps (those with < 4M faces); this was not intentional, so we cleaned that up last week and going fwds only save the downsampled mesh + texture files. This means you will only be able to export the downsampled mesh.
I’d be interested to understand your use-case for the full resolution 3D model, as we had assumed most users relied on the point cloud or elevation models for detailed analysis. Can certainly look into bringing back a full res model if it is a highly valuable feature for you.
1 Like
Hi @jeremy! I work in the photovoltaic area, so we need a good model to show customers. We put the modules on the roof and show them to the customer. A beautiful appearance is essential for a good sale.
But the decimated model is not so good. The end result is very different. Look at this roof:
And I didn’t mention that the decimated model doesn’t load textures in Windows. To load, I need to open it in other software and export it again. The work is much greater.
My suggestion is: give the option to export the full resolution 3D model as well. I’m sure it is missing for many people.
1 Like
Do you know when this happened? I have OBJ’s from last week that have the native file.
That looks more like a poor model than low-res textures to me… What resolution does it say the model is? For instance this one is 2in/px.
This started to happen last Thursday, approximately. Until then, the export resolution was 2 in / px. Today, the resolution is 5 in / px. Look:
1 Like
That makes sense. My last one was Wednesday, flown on Tuesday and it had the full file. Also, on the export pane it did not state a resolution. I just did one a minute ago, it only has the decimated file and now states 2in/px, but has lower resolutions available… Maybe the account is limited to 5in/px?
I don’t know. But i can’t work with the decimated model. Is very poor. I need the full resolution model.
1 Like
You could try running your photos thru Agisoft’s Metashape program trial version to see if you can generate a better model. I have gotten better results with Metashape even before the DD .obj file resolution was reduced.
Regards,
Terry.
But DD has the resource, just make them available, as before. I was about to acquire the license, now I don’t know if I will acquire it anymore.
1 Like
I am more concerned with the model itself. Obviously the trial account has lower resolution output so running through Metashape as @SolarBarn suggested will be a pretty huge difference, but not exactly apples to apples. When I see waviness as I am seeing from your screenshot it usually means the image coverage wasn’t as good as it could have been and/or from the right angles, but if DroneDeploy is using a reduced file size @jeremy? then that can also contribute to a lesser point cloud and worse model.
If you would like to PM me I would be happy to run your project through our account so you can get a true comparison.
Seem to be a few different things going on here so I’ll try to address each below:
-
Model texture not loading in windows: this should have nothing to do with the decimated vs non-decimated .obj file. You will always have to load the .obj file and textures into special software to visualise the 3D scene. If you want to see the 2D map as a standalone image, just export the orthomosaic - the textures are not generated in a format which is useful to view independently. If you do have differences in loading the decimated vs non-decimated model + textures together, please let us know.
-
2cm/pix vs 5cm/pix resolution: if you were on a trial previously you would have access to native resolution orthomosaics, however this is limited when you come off the trial. If you send me your DD username (feel free to DM for privacy) I can extend your trial so you can export / regenerate the map at higher resolution to test us out properly. N.b. the 3D model texture resolution will not be the same as the orthomosaic resolution (looks like a bug with our UI in the screenshot you showed - I’ll get that logged), but is also decimated to improve model loading. This has not changed recently (we have always decimated the model textures).
-
Artifacts with the model roof: this is unlikely to be related to the .obj decimation, rather an artifact we often see with distortion over corrugated roofs (something we are aware of and steadily working to resolve). Your post suggests that these artifacts were not present in the original undecimated .obj - if so could you please DM me the map link (can just send the url) as we definitely want to investigate.
Jeremy
Wasn’t it changed that there is now no activity once off the trial. There is no longer a free processing account unless that has changed again in the last year.
Only if the images were insufficiently acquired.