16
Bug Reports / Re: Broken high res mesh
« on: March 09, 2020, 01:36:22 PM »
I am running NVIDIA RTX 2070 with driver 26.21.14.4128
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
Bug Reports / Re: Broken high res mesh
« on: March 09, 2020, 11:15:15 AM »
Decimated the broken 360M model to 10M and it appears to be in order, at least in MS model view. I realize that a workaroud could soleve the problem, by steering away from the large model, but it is not a solution for the long run.
18
Bug Reports / Re: Broken high res mesh
« on: March 06, 2020, 10:01:10 AM »
Ran it again at target 360M and got the same faulty mesh as when I had the target set at 100M.
19
Bug Reports / Re: Broken high res mesh
« on: March 04, 2020, 04:02:08 PM »
I can run it at the end of the working day to check if it stays the same at 360M. I did a test uploading to sketchfab and the model had the same issue. I don't have any desktop software that supports such high poly models.
20
Bug Reports / Broken high res mesh
« on: March 04, 2020, 01:18:26 PM »
EDIT: ran it again with 100M face count (original set at 0) and it worked. Could be an issue with 0 face count.
Tried building mesh from a 154M pointcloud (generated in MS) but get this weird looking mesh, that is supposedly 373M poly high. Have made this previously with no problem.
2020-03-04 08:32:40 BuildModel: quality = Ultra high, depth filtering = Mild, source data = Dense cloud, surface type = Arbitrary, face count = 0, interpolation = Enabled, vertex colors = 1
2020-03-04 08:32:40 Generating mesh...
2020-03-04 08:32:40 Grid size: 8990 x 1574 x 22341
2020-03-04 08:32:40 Tree depth: 15
2020-03-04 08:43:37 Tree set in 656.832s (154227843 points)
2020-03-04 08:43:51 Leaves/Nodes: 1023032137/1169179585
2020-03-04 08:48:17 Laplacian constraints set in 265.912s
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[0/15]: 1
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0 / 0
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[1/15]: 8
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0 / 0
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[2/15]: 64
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.00100017 / 0.000999928
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[3/15]: 512
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.000999928 / 0.00200009
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[4/15]: 4096
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.00499988 / 0.00600004
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[5/15]: 32768
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.0219996 / 0.0180004
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[6/15]: 13472
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.00800037 / 0.0269995
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[7/15]: 36768
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.0190001 / 0.0489998
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[8/15]: 121864
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.0429997 / 0.0740004
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[9/15]: 441448
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.136 / 0.174
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[10/15]: 1682024
2020-03-04 08:48:22 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.701004 / 0.821996
2020-03-04 08:48:22 Depth[11/15]: 6582408
2020-03-04 08:48:26 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 2.021 / 2.387
2020-03-04 08:48:26 Depth[12/15]: 25565256
2020-03-04 08:48:43 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 7.639 / 8.752
2020-03-04 08:48:43 Depth[13/15]: 95368864
2020-03-04 08:49:48 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 29.501 / 32.825
2020-03-04 08:49:48 Depth[14/15]: 318797312
2020-03-04 08:53:35 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 102.649 / 113.56
2020-03-04 08:53:35 Depth[15/15]: 720532720
2020-03-04 09:01:52 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 234.363 / 236.971
2020-03-04 09:01:53 Linear system solved in 815.592s
2020-03-04 09:02:34 Got Iso-value in 41.031s
2020-03-04 09:02:34 Iso-Value -0.0517755
2020-03-04 09:16:43 373736974 faces extracted in 848.316s
2020-03-04 09:29:55 Calculating vertex colors...
2020-03-04 09:29:55 processing nodes... done in 11.708 sec
2020-03-04 09:30:07 calculating colors... done in 2177.03 sec
2020-03-04 10:06:25 Peak memory used: 79.40 GB at 2020-03-04 08:43:34
2020-03-04 10:06:25 Finished processing in 5625.24 sec (exit code 1)
>>>
Tried building mesh from a 154M pointcloud (generated in MS) but get this weird looking mesh, that is supposedly 373M poly high. Have made this previously with no problem.
2020-03-04 08:32:40 BuildModel: quality = Ultra high, depth filtering = Mild, source data = Dense cloud, surface type = Arbitrary, face count = 0, interpolation = Enabled, vertex colors = 1
2020-03-04 08:32:40 Generating mesh...
2020-03-04 08:32:40 Grid size: 8990 x 1574 x 22341
2020-03-04 08:32:40 Tree depth: 15
2020-03-04 08:43:37 Tree set in 656.832s (154227843 points)
2020-03-04 08:43:51 Leaves/Nodes: 1023032137/1169179585
2020-03-04 08:48:17 Laplacian constraints set in 265.912s
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[0/15]: 1
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0 / 0
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[1/15]: 8
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0 / 0
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[2/15]: 64
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.00100017 / 0.000999928
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[3/15]: 512
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.000999928 / 0.00200009
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[4/15]: 4096
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.00499988 / 0.00600004
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[5/15]: 32768
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.0219996 / 0.0180004
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[6/15]: 13472
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.00800037 / 0.0269995
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[7/15]: 36768
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.0190001 / 0.0489998
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[8/15]: 121864
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.0429997 / 0.0740004
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[9/15]: 441448
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.136 / 0.174
2020-03-04 08:48:20 Depth[10/15]: 1682024
2020-03-04 08:48:22 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 0.701004 / 0.821996
2020-03-04 08:48:22 Depth[11/15]: 6582408
2020-03-04 08:48:26 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 2.021 / 2.387
2020-03-04 08:48:26 Depth[12/15]: 25565256
2020-03-04 08:48:43 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 7.639 / 8.752
2020-03-04 08:48:43 Depth[13/15]: 95368864
2020-03-04 08:49:48 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 29.501 / 32.825
2020-03-04 08:49:48 Depth[14/15]: 318797312
2020-03-04 08:53:35 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 102.649 / 113.56
2020-03-04 08:53:35 Depth[15/15]: 720532720
2020-03-04 09:01:52 Evaluated / Got / Solved in: 0 / 234.363 / 236.971
2020-03-04 09:01:53 Linear system solved in 815.592s
2020-03-04 09:02:34 Got Iso-value in 41.031s
2020-03-04 09:02:34 Iso-Value -0.0517755
2020-03-04 09:16:43 373736974 faces extracted in 848.316s
2020-03-04 09:29:55 Calculating vertex colors...
2020-03-04 09:29:55 processing nodes... done in 11.708 sec
2020-03-04 09:30:07 calculating colors... done in 2177.03 sec
2020-03-04 10:06:25 Peak memory used: 79.40 GB at 2020-03-04 08:43:34
2020-03-04 10:06:25 Finished processing in 5625.24 sec (exit code 1)
>>>
21
General / Re: Index overflow
« on: February 14, 2020, 02:42:30 PM »
The dense cloud is not external, I have depth maps. I did manage to get a result when I classified the point cloud by confidence and used only points with above a certain threshold to generate mesh. Unfortunately this mesh was completely useless and I did not save it. I will however try using the depthmaps instead.
22
General / Index overflow
« on: February 14, 2020, 10:15:29 AM »
I am encountering Index overflow on a 582M poly dense cloud, processed at Ultra High. During meshing the index overflow happens after 24 minutes. Is this a RAM limitation or a bug?
Specs:
i9-9900K @3.6GHz
128 GB RAM
RTX2070
Specs:
i9-9900K @3.6GHz
128 GB RAM
RTX2070
23
Feature Requests / Re: More control over Normal & AO map baking
« on: January 27, 2020, 04:41:39 PM »
+1
Integrating some sort of UV guiding would be great, such as Boundary First https://geometrycollective.github.io/boundary-first-flattening/
Integrating some sort of UV guiding would be great, such as Boundary First https://geometrycollective.github.io/boundary-first-flattening/
24
General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 1.6.0 pre-release
« on: January 09, 2020, 03:23:08 PM »Hello Kjellis85,
Yes, normals texture maps generation should be available in the version 1.6.0 build 9925. It requires at least two mesh models in the active chunk, as a different mesh model should be used as a source for the Normal texture map generation. Using the same model will give plain output which cannot be used any further.
Ah, this makes much more sense! But I could not find this described in the manual https://www.agisoft.com/pdf/metashape-pro_1_6_en.pdf
25
General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 1.6.0 pre-release
« on: January 09, 2020, 12:31:43 PM »
Build normal map texture option is missing. I have made diffuse and occlusion map, should i not be able to do a normal map then?
Running 1.6.0.9925
Running 1.6.0.9925
26
General / Hardware test thread
« on: December 12, 2019, 12:30:54 PM »
This is a forum request, not a feature request, so I am posting here 
I think a lot of people who are interested in building their own rigs for processing are wondering what to choose. There are several commercial sites that have guides and recommendations for what kind of setup you should buy, but I think most of these sites are biased towards their own products, as well as not being up to speed with all the different products out there. Currently, the AMD CPU's and GPU's are making waves, but very little information about their metashape performance is to be found. But I am pretty sure some of the users here have real world experience using these. Therefore I propose that we create a sticky thread were people can post system specs and report from a run on a given test set of images, perhaps one for aerial and one for a statue or figure. That way we can keep track of how well different systems perform.
As a sample I have run a test on ultra using the Monument sample set on my system with the following specs:
CPU: Intel Core i9-9900K CPU @ 3.60GHz
GPU: GeForce RTX 2070 4GB
RAM: 4x32 GB (128GB)
Storage: Western Digital WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G-1006
Attached is the processing report.
I think a lot of people who are interested in building their own rigs for processing are wondering what to choose. There are several commercial sites that have guides and recommendations for what kind of setup you should buy, but I think most of these sites are biased towards their own products, as well as not being up to speed with all the different products out there. Currently, the AMD CPU's and GPU's are making waves, but very little information about their metashape performance is to be found. But I am pretty sure some of the users here have real world experience using these. Therefore I propose that we create a sticky thread were people can post system specs and report from a run on a given test set of images, perhaps one for aerial and one for a statue or figure. That way we can keep track of how well different systems perform.
As a sample I have run a test on ultra using the Monument sample set on my system with the following specs:
CPU: Intel Core i9-9900K CPU @ 3.60GHz
GPU: GeForce RTX 2070 4GB
RAM: 4x32 GB (128GB)
Storage: Western Digital WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G-1006
Attached is the processing report.
27
Feature Requests / Upload data ArcGis Online
« on: December 03, 2019, 12:04:17 PM »
I would really appreciate an upload module that is linked to ArcGis Online. Arcgis is the most widely used application for GIS professionals and the current workflow between MS and ArcGis is somewhat cumbersome.
28
Bug Reports / Re: Cloud error
« on: November 14, 2019, 10:34:05 AM »
Updated to latest beta release and cloud processing now works
29
Bug Reports / Re: Cloud error
« on: November 13, 2019, 04:44:34 PM »
I am running 1.6.0 9128, I don't have 1.5.5 installed.
30
Bug Reports / Cloud error (SOLVED)
« on: November 13, 2019, 04:06:34 PM »
I am trying to run a project in the cloud, but after upload i get the attached error message.
