[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/


File: gayshit.webm (1.47 MB, 1080x688)
1.47 MB
1.47 MB WEBM
I have this quad. It's not 100% flat though, and it resembles two tris without a line to separate them, actually. I can iron it to a totally flat piece by scaling its height to 0%, but that's only ONE quad, and quite possibly flattening it to a real quad will alter other almost-quads connected to its edges.

Is there a way to flat out all almost-quads simultaneously and to their maximum extent?
>>
There's no such thing as an almost-quad. You have 4 verticies attached in any configuration or position and you have a quad.

you have one you have a point

you have two you have a line, maybe

You have 3 verticies and you have a tri

you have >4 you have an n-gon
>>
>>497362
Eh.. I meant "almost-flat quad"
This is a /po/ problem tbh, as unwrapping a model where quads are the main pieces are easier to work with than two tris.
>>
bump
>>
>>497361
why the fuck are you trying to flatten a bunch of polys, please give context so we can help.
>>
>>497592
also on that note, please dont learn modeling in c4d. i did it, and regretted it hard core.

>use maya ( its free, not even a torrent... autodesk just gives it to students )
>>
>>497593
why?
Apart from some outdated stuff and some missing stuff, 85% of modeling in C4d is the same/similar as in Maya.
>>
>>497613
The 15%.
>>
>>497630
Ok, i get it, but i still think C4d is a good start for learning 3D, i've never seen somebody give up because of the program.
Blender and Maya on the other hand....
>>
>>497361
Yeah, OP, this is a problem in all modeling software. You generally try to model in quads because it's better for subdividing, edge loops, sculpting, whatever. But if you look closely, you see your quads (or ngons) aren't flat. That's because everything is really triangles, under the hood, and your modeling software is just hiding the edge in the middle so that it looks like a flat quad.

Bottom line is, as long as they are "nearly" flat, it doesn't matter. If your model is going into a game engine, everything will be turned into triangles, anyway. If your model is going to be rendered, some renderers will turn everything into triangles, and some will try to hide that edge, but that doesn't matter because your quads in a render should all be very small and/or very smooth.

It's just an ugliness that you learn to ignore as a modeler.

>>497633
>>497630
>>497613
>>497593
C4D is actually pretty rough if what you want to do is low-poly or game models, in general. It doesn't have very strong tools for building faces one vertex at a time, etc... This is actually one of the few places where Blender excels.
>>
>>497638
This.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXS70tRhMb8&
>>
>>497633
because the people you see use c4d are most likely call of duty video makers. they cant handle maya. But if you are serious about modeling and not just title work ( which is what cinema 4d is used for ). I would switch before you get too attached.

There are many more professional tutorials for maya than there are for cinema 4d
>>
>>497638
Thanks for the post, I understand what you mean, but in my case "nearly flat" isn't good enough and in the end, they're not- converted to triangles (necessarily).
I model papercraft models and the pieces I want to unfold should always be flat n-gons if possible.
Sorry for the shitty pic, I drew it on my phone.
The upper model is a cube that made of flat quads. It unfolds as squares, because the geometry doesn't need triangulation in the end.
In the lower model, I moved a vertex a tiny unit along the top quad's axis outwards, and immediately the front quad is no longer a "true" flat quad because it HAS to be triangulated.

This is a simple example though and it's easily fixable with the method I showed in the Original Post, but what I'm after is something that works with all nonflat quads in the model simultaneously. And if possible, n-gons too.

I'm not sure but maybe the words I'm looking for are "automated, exhaustive scaling of Y to 0% of each n-gon along their normal directions."
>>
>>497674
Fuck.. forgot the pic...
>>
>>497674
Never move a single vert then. Move two at a time.

I think you need specialized software with special rules.
>>
>>497676
Deforming of previously flat quads can happen unintentionally quite easily.

I just find it weird that I can flat all the nonflats manually with the scale tool one by one but there's no single optimize quads-command. Maybe some scripting solution?
>>
>>497678

Take a moment to think about what would happen to the shape of the object if you flattened every quad automatically.

Just scale the verts in orthographic cameras I guess and align stuff with snapping that is at an angle.
>>
>>497679
The model would be better, because I would now have flat quads or n-gons instead of almost-theres. Sure it would deform a tiny bit, but not lose its shape totally. I mean I would still have triangles here and there, --everything-- can't be a quad.
>>
Honestly, I don't understand how you can unintentionally deform a quad.
>>
>>497681
Take any model you have made and select a random quad. Is its height 0 mm? If yes, very lucky - select another. You're bound to hit 0.1 or whatever at some point. There is no way you can model anything without accidentally creating even a single nonflat quad.
>>
>>497683

If I'm making a basic papercraft model it's not exactly a fucking challenge to keep them aligned.
>>
>>497684
Well, maybe really really basic I guess. But as complexity rises you're bound to create things that look like flat quads but are two tris in disguise.
>>
>>497685

Every quad IS 2 tris. Just keep every pair of verts aligned and you'll be fine.
>>
>>497688
>Every quad IS 2 tris.
Yes, but only flat quads unfold as rectangles. Nonflat quads unfold as two triangles.

>Just keep every pair of verts aligned and you'll be fine.
Sounds like a solution but I'm not sure how that prevents me from creating nonflat quads.
>>
>>497690

Stop moving 1 vert.
>>
>>497691
Moving 2 verts will also cause distortion
>>
File: 1432880505983.jpg (65.84 KB, 405x720)
65.84 KB
65.84 KB JPG
>>497724
>>
>>497780
Is there something I'm missing here?
All I get is non-answers, hostile ad hominems or memes. I just wanted to know if there's a way to automatically flatten all non-flat quads.

In the very opening post itself I had moved two verts and that's obviously distorted.
>>
>>497849
The answer is NO.
>>
>>497849
That's because the two verbs you moved are on opposite sides, only move adjacent pairs you pleb.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.