›

Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Triangles, Scale, and Rendering

chronochrono0 Posts: 1Member
edited November 2006 in Technical Questions and Answers #1
I've doing doing some clean-up(typical stuff) on a mesh before my next step and came to an interesting junction.

In the first image this is the base geometry.
In the Second image I've reduced the geometry via stepping
In the Thrid image I've simply removed the one long edge.

What I'm doing is simple clean-up and not much else, not really worried about mesh reduction either. The surface is required to be fairly smooth and error-free and is also being detailing.

But this let me to question which would be best to use in this particular situation. Smaller triangles or larger ones? How will either effect rendering or shader/material control.
Post edited by chrono on

Posts

  • BerticusBerticus171 Posts: 63Member
    #2
    Sub-d or no?

    If yes than fewer larger tris, if no, as many tris as you can fit in there... I hope that helps..?
    -albert
  • SphynxSphynx195 Posts: 461Member
    #3
    If you are going down the subdivision route, then you'll need to watch for stretching but I think that you'll pretty much solve that with the second layer of triangles before the edge, regardless of which way you choose.

    Personally, in that form I'd have used D: None of the above, and linked each opposing set of inner points with a quad running across the semi-circle surface.
  • JeffrySGJeffrySG321 Posts: 477Member
    #4
    Sphynx wrote: »
    Personally, in that form I'd have used D: None of the above, and linked each opposing set of inner points with a quad running across the semi-circle surface.

    I was just about to say the same thing... :) I think I'd rather end up with a bunch of quads going across if I could. Subd or no subd.

    Chrono: are you modeling in Silo for this one? and what are you rendering in?

    And the real answer will come from how your renderer handles all of those situations. If it looks fine for any of them it really doesn't matter does it?

    But I always get a little weary when I have a bunch of tris that are that thin and narrow.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]2 Posts: 3Member
    #5
    Although it's hard to say without knowing what pictured model is a part of, I would echo what Sphynx and JeffrySG said. My reasons are as follows.

    I'm like Jeffry, thin and narrow tris throw up a red flag, and a bunch going to a single vert hub sets off a red warning klaxon. Most renderers I've used don't like that star or spoke topology you have going there. There is a larger chance of artifacts and smoothing problems when using that sort of geometry.

    I like having loops in my topology because there are a lot of modeling tools that take advantage of of it and quads in general. To me it is cleaner. Sub D likes quads as well.

    Plus, if you link those verts like Sphinx said, you will actually get rid of a face. Not a big deal, but if you have a lot of topology similar to what's pictured it can add up if you do small optimizations like that.

    Ultimately it depends on your preference and how it looks to you. These are just some points to ponder.

    Good luck.
  • chronochrono0 Posts: 1Member
    #6
    Sphinx that a point I didn't even see!

    Thanks everyone. :)
  • JeffrySGJeffrySG321 Posts: 477Member
    #7
    so Chrono: what app. are your doing your final renders in?
  • chronochrono0 Posts: 1Member
    #8
    JeffrySG, I'm not even near a decision on that one yet, but I generally render in TS. However I wanted to get a broad opinion on the subject mainly due to it's being geometry based.

    Also someone wanted to see a larger area of the mesh. The model is 2000 meters in length, so the area is only a few meters in size. But it's getting modelled down to the meter scale which is why I posed the question.
Sign In or Register to comment.