Could you post a picture of the whole mesh and describe the use case in more detail? Personally I would be interested to have something like that for triangulated scanned and optimized meshes so I might sit down and simply try how well it works sooner or later. (Might take a while, though, since I have only rudimentary skills in MaxScript.)
@Klvnk: Looks like the two variants might return pretty similar angle sums in regards to the surrounding faces, so a threshold might make sense to exclude unclear cases like that. Ultimately you are right that this is an artistic decision, though.
i think it must be a universal solution if we want to use any automated method for solving.
i suggest to use the ‘most flatten’ solution – where two faces have smaller angle at the shared edge
Unfortunately i can not post the full mesh.
The creation method is basically a mesh is created through a triangulation script, then raised. Since the mesh is created flat, upon raising it you get the artifacts as stated above. You could probably get similar solutions by “mesh smoothing” a circle and moving the inner verts up. See below.
you can see how there all these “v” formations now in the mesh, where ideally you would want that smoothed.
I have no access to the stage before the raising, so i have to work with the final result.
Thanks! So would there be a chance of steep or concave angles being desired at all? Because if not, the solution in your case should be quite straight forward, similar to what vusta did, just for triangulated meshes.
@denisT: I think the (probably unlikely) case could occur where the two angles are identical and the surrounding geometry would give ambiguous results as well. (Can’t judge if that’s the case in Klvnk’s example.)
But for a more universal application I think the flatter angle of the face pair itself is not necessarily the better solution. (e. g. along a sharp ridge).