Answered

Replaceability of OBJ file with a better one

Of course the generated OBJ is not perfect.

Sometimes there are fixes that would be very simple, and would improve the space greatly.

Sometimes there are even artifacts that block passage, that one could just remove.

Sometimes slight edits to the 3d geometry can make a VR stereoscopic experience much better.

Sometimes... one would just want to be able to replace that bad OBJ with a better one.

So, that's basically my product suggestion.

Please note that it is not necessary that you as a MSP must be able to edit an OBJ to take advantage of this feature: someone else can fix your OBJ (those who have the tools and the skills). But you need to be able to replace it, and that's the feature that I'm requesting to be added.

Practically speaking, a way to implement this on Matterport's side in a simple way, could be this one:

From Workshop, there could be an area where one can upload OBJ files: drag'n'drop, upload buttons, whatever. The name of an uploaded file must match a space unique ID (that is visible from its URL). Workshop of course can check that a file name matches one of the spaces name (to which the Workshop user has access), otherwise it rejects it.

Then, for each uploaded OBJ file, a replacement is done for the corresponding space.

Side note:

I know that in the internal Matterport's feature request list, there is already an entry for this request. It's labeled: "workshop - ability to upload edited .obj". They add a +1 there every time something like this is requested, and tag the source of the request (e.g. a support request, etc.).

Of course I don't know how many +1 it already has.

If you'll vote this post (like), that will probably contribute to let that existing entry emerge in their list.

@antiochinteractive, @simonmodera, @wrobinson869matterport

I know you'll like this :)

11

Comments

9 comments
  • @Antonio Orlando, this is *very* cool!! It would probably have some substantial complexity: if a user accidentally uploaded another OBJ, or an OBJ where 90% of the geometry fit but the other 10% did not, we'd need to handle those cases carefully. Perhaps a way to revert back to the original, should any future versions fail? I'm assuming that all of the actual 3D work would be done outside of Matterport, using a modeling program of choice?

    Another quick question: Would it be better/worse/the same to include very basic OBJ-editing tools in Workshop, instead of upload ability? For example, if we had a "delete geometry" brush to clean up any blocked doorways -- that would seem to solve one need. What are the others?

    Sorry for the 20 questions; basically we're trying to understand the goals, so we can make the best choices.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • It would be way better to do the actual 3D work outside of Matterport, using a modeling program of choice, and upload the OBJ for replacement (i.e., I'm not for OBJ-editing tools in Workshop, which would also take way much time to be completed by the development team).

    The feature could put "responsibility" on the user: for example, I would first download the original OBJ and keep it safe somewhere, to be sure that in case of bad results I can put it back as it was.

    This feature would be used for making improvements to the automatic result, and with professional experience on editing 3D objects, with external tools: so practically speaking, hardly a professional will spend useless time to download/upload things, etc. and end up with something where 90% of the geometry fit but the other 10% doesn't - it would be a defect of care, and just a waste of energy. Or it could happen yes, but because the original OBJ had a 80% geometry fit :)

    But if you have this kind of fear (e.g. because you don't want to have cases where a replaced OBJ is worse than the original one, if your concern is that it would be bad for Matterport's image), you could e.g. open the possibility only to selected users, e.g. after some application process where some screening is done previously and after, asking for what kind of external software is used, what's the professional background, signing something to accept, etc.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • That's probably the way to go, @Antonio Orlando -- let the user do it, but be able to revert. It might also be something that's turned off by default, but can be toggled in the user's account settings.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • (Read above for my reply to your questions)

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • If there was an obj upload feature, wouldn't that allow us to also add in a "False" camera location, say for an exterior and actually have that connected to the walk through?

    Also, with the OBJ upload, for construction usage, we can add other items in modeling programs, upload it and allow clients to view the changes to the space. The biggest issue I see is that the ablity to edit the 3D mesh and keep the UVW mapping is a limited skillset, and may not have enough people using it.

    I think the matterport SAAS/PAAS is missing a lot of opportunity in the visual side of architecture and construction. Imagine instead of uploading the data from the matterport camer you have a plugin for popular 3D CAD apps like Revit, and you can export matterport models from the CAD program so that you can share the design with your team who cannot use Revit, but the clients can review a design in 3D tour. This could up a new revenue stream for hosting models from architects and contractors.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I have met many people, especially architects and contractors, who are interested in viewing a edited .obj file in 3D tour (in mattterport showcase)

    Certainly this could up a new revenue stream!!!.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Hi @Travis Johnson - love your ideas! As mentioned in the other thread we are investigating and agree there could be a very compelling business case.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Awesome idea here. Two things I love. The ability to add unbuilt but planned geometry to the MP space and ability to add navigability outside of the scan. I hadn't considered editing the obj as the path to doing this but definitely seems like the way to go.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Hi all ,

    I fully agree with this request.

    My customers are requesting me in France to create 3D models from 2D Drawings to revamp , make homestaging adding new furnitures in the home to render it more sexy for buyers.

    I suggest to use HOME BY ME solution for instance or REVIT or 3DS Max to create the .OBJ file to be imported at our own responsibility , assuming MATTERPORT is giving us the best rules to follow the format.

    HOWEVER, if I want to reimport a DOWNLOADED .OBJ file , what is the process to add it in the MATTERPORT cloud once we have deleted and store it during two years?

    thanks

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.