Does anyone know why the Revo Metro software is so slow to process data? Have the Metro Y Pro. For example, trying to use the “Fill Holes” detect function, and it has been running for 20 minutes now and no progress has been made? Navigation is super quick, but any tool used is so dang slow.
My PC is beefy with 192GB DDR5, 8TB NVMe Gen 5, RTX 4090, and Intel 13900K. Yet, my PC is only using 5% CPU, 3% GPU, and 11GB of RAM?! Seems ridiculous… Is there a BETA version I can try out, or is this just common for the software? If so, that is truly disappointing. Really thought the software would preform much better for the price I paid for the scanner…
I concur with the software being extremely slow! I don’t recall it being this slow on earlier editions of the software. Can you have someone verify and compare what changed, say… from what was being used perhaps 2 years ago? I recall it being much faster.
Right now it tells me it will take 4 minutes to process a scan and in reallity it’s more like 15 minutes. (but that is one scan taking that long, I have at least 6 scans to encompass my item and I have MANY more to scan). Time is money and this is hurting…….
Do you use the recomended system ? What system you use?
What scanner you are using ?
Remember the new software don’t use limits as the early versions , that why for you it may look like slower .
The fusion and meshing is working for me normal as usual , the processing time depends on the fusion settings , using everything set of highest setting will take longer to process .
Closing holes or simplifying can take longer as expected when the mesh is above 9 million polygons.
What the number of polygons we talking here about ? More than 9 millions or less than that ?.
Hi
I use fast scan and fast fusion (and even fast mesh) very often now because of that. Yes, more loose points, but even with manual postprocessing=removing isolated and overlapping points still MUCH faster workflow and for my needs results more than satisfactory. Maybe you should try it.
Still hoping for performance improvement still (Team AMD, Ryzen 9 5900x, 128 GB RAM, NVMe SSD)
Yeah Ivan , this full take done home to improve , there is lots of other stuff planned for end of the March and for the Q3 if the year with more improvements .
I have absolutely no doubt Revo team is adressing and solving out all these issues They’ve done some great work already. Kudos for all the job done and in advance for all that’s coming. Looking forward to it!
Can you please share , from your experiences, what the disadvantages of fast fusion are? Less accuracy? If so, by how much compared to high-quality fusion?
I wanted to provide some clarification on how fusion settings impact your scan results. It is important to note that fusion settings primarily determine the resolution of the object rather than its accuracy. The accuracy is built into the scanner’s sensors, while the fusion settings define the level of detail in the final mesh ( resolution )
For example, Fast Fusion uses simpler algorithms, which may result in a slight loss of resolution/ details depending on the specific scan. This setting works best for objects with fewer features or organic shapes, such as a coffee cup. Conversely, for detailed scans where resolution is critical—such as dental scans with rich features—High Quality Fusion is the better choice.
To provide a quick example of how these settings function, consider scanning a basic cube. Since a cube only consists of eight points, you can easily use Fast Fusion, as you do not need more than those base points to complete the shape.
However, if the cube includes additional elements, such as relief or fine details on its six sides, it requires higher automatic fusion settings to keep those details intact. You can think of Fast Fusion as a “cage producer”; it simplifies the organization of the data by producing fewer points while ensuring the most critical points remain exactly where they need to be.
I hope this comparison helps clarify the different applications for these settings.
A fusion setting of 0.3mm does not reduce the object’s accuracy, though it does affect the resolution based on the object’s size and form. For larger, featureless objects, a deviation of 0.1mm is generally acceptable.
Ultimately, the best approach is to scan your object using both settings and compare the exported files. Choosing the best configuration based on the specific geometry and features of your object will yield better results than simply assuming a higher setting is always superior.
Thank you very much for your detailed reply, Cath!
That matches somewhat my findings, too.I didn’t experience any decrease in accuracy using fast fusion algorithm - matching what you say. Which already is great!
But even the quality/resolution of detailed models didn’t look noticible worse with fast fusion. I have to conduct more tests to get the feeling for what kind of object the extra processing time for high-quality fusion (at least 3x and more on my cpu) might be worth going that extra loooong mile
I just wanted to remind the folks that fast fusion is still there and is IMHO a very good and very fast algorithm and to consider using it (again).
Because I neglected it over high-quality fusion, myself.
While I used high-quality fusion as my standard for quite some time, I think fast fusion should - or at least CAN - be used as the standard fusion method and high-quality fusion rather as an extra option for the delicate, very detailed objects where time factor doesn’t matter (as much).
I agree that the best approach depends entirely on the individual user, the specific object being scanned, and the desired outcome. There isn’t a single universal setting; rather, it is about finding the right balance for your specific needs and time constraints.
It is helpful to think of this in terms of the old Standard vs. Advanced fusing. The core logic still relies heavily on those algorithms, though the technology has improved significantly. Choosing “Fast” fusing doesn’t mean the quality is lacking; it simply means the system is performing a lot of the cleanup work automatically.
On the other hand, “High Quality” fusing takes more time because the system is performing deeper calculations to differentiate between noise and essential detail, making more deliberate choices about what to retain.
I hope this helps clarify how to choose the right settings for your projects.
They’ve done some great work already. Kudos for all the job done and in advance for all that’s coming. Looking forward to it!
