[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] [vip] [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/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Rhino+close+up.jpg (687 KB, 1000x667)
687 KB
687 KB JPG
What are the advantages of modeling with meshes over nurbs?
I'm somewhat experienced with Rhino and modeling architecture, but a total noob when it comes to modeling with meshes.
But with the exception of rhino, all 3D packages seem to be using meshes for everything and getting good results, so I would love for someone to shed some light on this.

To me, nurbs seem a lot more accessible and easy to control, and the mostly additive + booleans workflow is very intuitive and precise. Box modeling on the other hand seems to be the opposite, but idk.
>>
You use meshes for animation purposes
Nurbs is really heavy to compute but really handy for mechanical pieces (for industry)

Zbrush or Modo give some good solution to create some meshes
>>
>>552954
most NURBS models will get converted to polygons anyway, at least at rendering, often even before.
>>
>>552956
>>552965
I know nurbs are heavier to compute, but it's such an easy way to design.
Guess they're pretty useless for anything not to be manufactured tho.

And yeah, they will be turned into a mesh anyway, either manually to optimize a model, or simply into a rendermesh for rendering.




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.