Wasnt sure if there was any other way that could increase the hair amount. I recall a post that mentioned sub division... but it did nothing to the object in garibaldi... And rescaling the hair tie just looks wrong. Hair ties are tight lol.
Not to worry. Multiple nodes it is
I posted a render using that technique a couple of weeks ago...
And yeah, you either need to subdivide the heck out of it or use a couple of nodes. On of the things I found is that if you make a filled circle, in Blender, by extruding the outer edge in, several times, before having them all meet in the center and then subdividing that in Blender, you can get a better/more faces to use. I can't remember, exactly how many...but I was getting the best results, for a single node, starting with a couple of hundred faces...I'll run a couple of more tests.
Quoted from Post #846 - Sounds like MJC was getting more surface area by indenting the hair distribution area of the model inside the hair tie... He'd get more hair out of it but I dont think it's enough surface to warrant only one node. My tests with SD didn't change the nodes OR Amount of hair.
Ah yes, I was aware the surface space had effect of how many hairs... and I totally understand why the 500 limit is in place... if you went too high by accident, the computer would certainly have a fit. (A bit like accidentally changing interpolation widths to extremes in fast movement... Freezes my computer instantly (If music is playing at the time, the music instantly gets frozen too like a scratched CD stuck on one frequency) Only way out is to force shut down computer) So yeah, it must have the limit of hair count.
What I meant, is subdivide it in the modelling app so you can actually change the number of sides/over all shape...but not using a subdivision modifier or algorithm. An actual 'cut' type division.
What I'm getting is very odd and inconsistent. And not what I expect.
I create a flat disk, in Blender, with any number of polys, UV map it and export it as on obj. I take it into DS and don't scale it or anything and it's 2cm in diameter. I create a hair node on it and leave it at the default distribution (10). I get 52 hairs...
Now, if I up it to say 100...I get 362 hairs (which, is closer to the the 315 it should be, if it is actually hairs/cm2), but if I take it to 500, I get 1545. I can manually type in over 500 (up to 1000...the slider goes to 500). At 1000, I get 3072...
Not too unexpected/outrageous.
Now here's where the oddity starts coming in.
I follow the above steps, but have a 4 cm disk. At 100 you'd expect over 1200 hairs...which I get. Now the really odd thing is, if I take that disk and scale it down, depending on HOW I scale it (this is BEFORE creating hair on it) I can still get over 1200 hairs, if I drop it back to a 2 cm size (scale xz down to 50%). I can create the hair AFTER scaling and end up with 300+ if I use the sliders, but if I use a script, I'll still get 1200+. And if I save it, the count will 'lock' in at that rate...I think that's how I ended up with some items that are giving me over 5 million hairs, when by calculating it out I should be getting right around a million (for the entire object). This behavior, I believe is a bug...but I'm not sure where the bug is, without further testing. I think it's not anything to do with creating the hair, because it works the other way, too...scaling up, using the sliders, works...using the script, it stays the same. Of course if I export the scaled item and reimport it before creating the hair the results are as expected.
Altering the geometry produces differing results...some of which show that either DS or Garibaldi is assuming the item is a square or circle...not necessarily the number of sides the object actually has (tried to make something with 18 sides and it came out as if it was a circle, as far as hair count goes). But things get really weird when making convoluted objects or squashed spheres...like if I take a circle made with 32 segments and pull up every other one, I get over 1900 hairs (4 cm circle)...and with a sphere, I can 'sqaush' it in such a way that I get over 2300 for a 4 cm dome (cut sphere in half before squashing).
So, it's not as if the area calculations are quite simple/straight forward