[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 / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / 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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 423441241.jpg (178 KB, 1836x996)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>that topology

post bad topology
>>
looks ok desu
>>
>>609994
Looks perfectly fine...
>>
File: 1519516733961.jpg (40 KB, 400x400)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
bad gun design

a semi-auto pistol shouldn't have a battle rifle scope. none the less this stupid fucking muzzle break/barrel tip.
also good job on adding more extra weight by moving the magazine to the front
this gun is so fucking stupid i can't even
>>
File: blaster_1456426743.jpg (48 KB, 1024x622)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>610002
>semi-auto pistol
that's the laser from star wars
>>
>>610006
that's even worse
why not just add a tripod in addition to that scope
>>
>>610008
Anon... it's a dumb fictional sci-fi series about old men waving oversized laser pointers at each other. The guns just needed to look like guns, nobody really cares otherwise.
>>
>>610009
well it somehow worked.
pulling that off today would be suicide
>>
>>609994
It doesn't deform, so fuck it.
>>
>>610012
even if the geometry doesn't deform, it still has to be rendered properly, which the topology can fuck with.
>>
>>610025
op topo looks perfectly fine and everything will be great unless vertex normals are fucked up which is easily fixable

high poly autists need to fuck off, really
>>
>>610027
damn dude. sorry i assumed you understood the basics of edge flow and rendering. next time i'll be more careful.
>>
>>610028
Lol, I agree with that guy. It can fuck up the render or it won't, depends on what you do with it.
>>
>>610028
what is exactly wrong with op topo, you autist
>>
>>610031
>>610030
>>610027
>>610012
>moving goalposts

you said it "doesn't deform", not that it's good topology.
>>
>>610032
i'm not the poster of "deform" thing
>>
>>610033
im in north korea, so you're guilty by association.
>>
>>610034
..sorry
>>
>>610033
I said that topology is fine. My models sometimes have topo like that, then I slap bevel shader on that bad boi and it renders fucking perfectly.
>>
>>610012
How do you fuck it if it doesn't deform though?
>>
File: topo.png (295 KB, 694x492)
295 KB
295 KB PNG
>>609999
>>610001
>>610027
>>610031
To be fair, it has some questionable things, like thin long triangle A and ambiguous quad B... But yes, it looks definitley serviceable.
>>
File: image.jpg (45 KB, 560x375)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
There's something really funny to me how about how everybody here is terrified to show their topology to avoid scrutiny.

Where's your balls now?
>>
File: topo.jpg (566 KB, 1116x1011)
566 KB
566 KB JPG
rape my topo
>>
>>610051
The fact that it has any verts/edges on the flats at all is questionable to me, for an object like this it's simpler just to have all planar surfaces be ngons, and a quick count shows me that some ~100 verts could be culled from this mesh and it would look identical.
>>
>>610069
Actually, on second look, it seems as much as 160 verts don't contribute anything to the topology.
>>
>>610069
>>610070
Those verts are there to control how the geometry is triangulated
>>
>>610048
Shaders can look weird if the topology is bad.
>>
File: RoboCop-2014-Film.jpg (141 KB, 640x1136)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>>610011
I think modern sci fi tries to hide thats it is just as childish as old sci fi in faux practicality
>>
>>610068
Is this impresive or just a modifier
>>
>>610068
>"this proves that 3ds max only produces unusable shit and wastes people's time"
>>
doesnt matter if it doesnt deform
>>
>>610090
Tor Frick is the proof shit topo can render nicely. What else do you need?
>>
>>610082
This kills the troll.
>>
>>610077
You did not understand my friend. I'm sorry.
>>
You autistic fucktards need to take the chill pill.
>>
>>610070
If this is game model, possibly there for vert colors.
>>
>>610002
>>610008
>>610011
Are you a retard, a third worlder, underage, or all three?
You disgust me.
>>
>>610078
This was such an needless redesign, they even had a perfectly fine gun metal colored suit for him but then they have a scene (that I can only assume is meant to mock some producer or studio head or some such) where it's redesigned to look more mainstream.

Other than that, it was actually a pretty good movie.
>>
>>610721
No it wasn't. Clean, boring, watered down PG13 shit for dumb children.
Together with Total Recall one of the most redundant SciFi remakes of the last decade.
The studio exec who green-lighted this should be dissolved into acid and then hit by a car.
>>
>>610720
>putting "third worlder" in the same sentence with "retard" and "underage"
If anyone is truly disgusting here, it's you.
>>
>>610069
>it's simpler just to have all planar surfaces be ngons
You do realize that this is a game prop, right? Are you mentally deficient, or do you just not know that all ngons are translated into triangles anyway?
You don't save polygons by making ngons, dumbo.

>and a quick count shows me that some ~100 verts could be culled from this mesh and it would look identical
Point them out?
>>
File: 1520093247834.jpg (227 KB, 1836x996)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
>>610899
>You do realize that this is a game prop, right? Are you mentally deficient, or do you just not know that all ngons are translated into triangles anyway?
>You don't save polygons by making ngons, dumbo.
When I said "simpler" I meant in terms of being able to manipulate the mesh/visual garbage, since you have less geometry to mess with if you need to make a change.
In any case, there are vertices on the mesh that would produce extra triangles on account of them not doing anything topology-wise.

>Point them out?
Sure, I painted them red, at least the ones that are visible from these angles.
>>
>>610964
This guy have never done a day of industrywork in his life.

Those verts are all needed or the model would look shit in an actual engine.
>>
>>610964
How would you reduce the polycount on the knobs and still retain their shape? (I’m looking at the left view, where you marked two knobs.)
>>
>>611004
Removing those vertices wouldn't change the shape as far as I can see.
>>
>>611002
Depends on the engine I guess... from my time with Unreal 4, I found that you can go crazy with topology, but I suppose that some older engines could have problems, with the further back you go, the more quirks there would be.

In any case, rather than talk about bad practice boogeymen, it would be helpful if you or someone could actually provide an example of harmful topology. I haven't had anything happen to me other than the occasional flipped normals, but that's not topology related per-se.

On a different note I want to say that the gun model is too low-detail for my tastes and needs extensive normal mapping to look good, but even then it would still probably be a bit too rough for first-person.
>>
>>609994
somewhat related but I literally just started getting serious about hard surface the other day. Is clipping acceptable? Like I won’t get chastised doing stuff like the cylinders in OP’s image?
>>
>>611018
it is acceptable
>>
>>611007
Dissolving those vertices would create n-gons, that would have to be triangulated before entering the game engine, possibly in a worse way.
>>
>>611018
Don’t create internal faces, don’t let backfaces be visible from outside the mesh, and generally you’ll be fine. Most of the time you’ll end with more optimized assets this way, because you don’t have to connect everything with extra geometry.
>>
>>609994
This just looks like it went through a mesh optimizer. Is there anything wrong with that for production?
>>
Is this even legal?
>>
>>611042
>the hexacore patterns

It looks pretty cool at least.
>>
>>610051
this
>>610069
>>610964
no game engine supports ngons.
what's wrong with the model is the guy who made it tried to save polygons and looks like he gave up when he realized there's the heat sink looking thing and suddenly decided floating geometry is fine. could've done floating geometry from the beginning and keep it cleaner looking since his imaginary game engine supports it.
>>
>>611042
Please, don't subdivide triangulated meshes, it makes baby Jesus cry.
>>
>>611050
What are we supposed to do to correctly subdiv these, if we know it will be triangulated and it will deform and animate? And what issues one can expect from this wire?
>>
>>611052
you don't subdivide triangulated meshes
>>
>>611057
how do you up polycount on them then
>>
>>611061
You retopologize it into quads then subdivide
>>
File: f08.gif (1.92 MB, 391x334)
1.92 MB
1.92 MB GIF
>>611007
>Removing those vertices wouldn't change the shape as far as I can see.
>>
>>611072
Tell me what I said wrong then. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing, but those 2 half-cylinders on top and the one in the middle have unnecessary parallel edges. Those loops don't hold the shape. Can't see it clearly from that image though.
>>
>>611073
>Tell me what I said wrong then
I mean... it's not what you said wrong exactly, it's your whole thoughtprocess. It's like you'd pick ngons over having 30 extra polys. And that's beyond retarded. Unfuck yourself.
>>
>>611074
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not the guy who originally said that the vertices are a waste, I was just replying to another post because they wouldn't change the shape if you removed them, like he said. Couldn't care less if there are extra polys, I would personally leave them as well.
>>
>>611057
Triangulated meshes are the final (or start) product. Your working product is the quad-based mesh. Focus on that one, it’ll make your work easier overall.
>>
>>611057
>>611080
Ups, that reply was meant for >>611052.
>>
File: 0001-0250.webm (640 KB, 1060x1100)
640 KB
640 KB WEBM
>>611007
>>
>>611083
Yeah, read another post, I wasn't talking about that area, but the ones on the top and the middle.
>>
>>611083
>>611086
That being said though, cap those edges again and see what happens.
>>
>>611075
That's because you jumped into the discussion talking about the wrong area...

We were all talking about this area
>>611083

Which was mentioned in this post which I assume you responded to.
>>611004

The top ones which you were talking about is just to preserve the topology for subdividing and sculpting, or possible changes down the line.

Removing them wouldn't change the the shape at all, but it might screw up the sculpt down the line. So it would be bad practice to remove them.
>>
>>611090
My mistake then. Still - >>611087
Why couldn't you delete the face and make a cap again? It would looks just like a default cylinder which doesn't have all those edges on the bases.

And one more time, I would leave it as is, but since you are arguing it's impossible, well, I'm saying that it isn't. Delete the face and cap again, it will remove the edges and reduce the polycount. You'll get a shitty ngon but that's a different story now.
>>
>>611064
>>611080
Are there any good techniques or guides to retopology? That model is from the game mod(skyrim specifically), I haven't done it myself, just found and thought it would be a good idea to ask here if its legit and what can be done to improve
>>
>>611115
If you won't be animating it and don't give a shit about topoflow, you could just run something like the Quadrangulate command in Maya (which I'm sure blender has a modifier analogue for) and call it a day. If you are, then I think you don't really have any choice besides either deleting tris manually to preserve the original edge flow (don't do this), running Quadrangulate then manually fixing the trouble spots after (feasible depending on how dense your mesh is) or running a bunch of guides in zBrush then hoping zRemesher does the job.

The best way to do this is just to not work with these meshes though. Find another base that won't give you severe carpal tunnel syndrome by the time you're done cleaning it up.
>>
>>611108
>Delete the face and cap again, it will remove the edges and reduce the polycount. You'll get a shitty ngon but that's a different story now.
Literally what you said you wouldn't do, so stop arguing that anyone should ever do that shit. You are being a moron for the sake of being a moron. Just because you can shove a stick of dynamite up your ass and light it on fire doesn't mean it's ever a good fucking idea.

Yes, you can make it into an ngon, but you would be a fucking retard for doing it. So no, you can't do it and still be regarded as a reasonable human being.

Now kindly fuck off.
>>
>>611108
>Why couldn't you delete the face and make a cap again
BECAUSE YOU GET FUCKING NGON, WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>611145
>>611144
It literally doesn't matter if you're not gonna subdivide it. Can't you have a normal discussion without attacking people? Degenerates...
>>
>>611050
HM. Surely there is an algorithm that can subdivide tris based meshes without deformation
>>
>>611149
It literally fucking matter if you have ngons on gameprops and import them into engines. If you have no clue, don't even join the fucking discussion you absolute mong.
>>
>>611145

Just fucking tesselate the ngon and add a control loop for subdivision purposes.
>>
>>610051

Now the question I always wonder after I do exactly that kind of dumbshit and I realize about it 1 hour later.

How the fuck can I solve it?
>>
>>611211
Do that and you are back to point -1.
>>
>>609994

I'm a noob. Can someone explain to me why the guy who made this didn't use floating topology?
>>
>>610964
Most of these are supporting the shading, especially the edge loops around the barrel. Believe me, I have tried countless time to get rid of them or to improve topology, it just doesn't work as well with normal maps as a few edge loops here and there.
>>
>>612852
Seeing as the model doesn't have any topology suitable for subdivision, my guess would be that it's a game-res lowpoly. Floating geo can be really bad for normal maps.
>>
>>611042
I wish I had a full-body stocking with that pattern.
Hell I wish I had a full-body stocking.
>>
>>612907
>Floating geo can be really bad for normal maps
Wut? How exactly?
I make game art and use floaters in the LP, so do several other game artists I know.
>>
>>612909
They *have* to exist.
>>
>>612916
I assume you are talking about floating geo in the highpoly, no issues there.
In lowpolys you'd have to push them into the surface, that introduces baking artifacts around concave edges where polygons intersect.
>>
>>612934

Can I have some picture examples? Preferably from vidya.
>>
>>612934
Just use some common sense man.
If that is a problem its easy to fix, just explode your mesh before baking.
>>
>>612982
>>612934
>>612916

Not the same model, but here is the same ref done. There is no issue with the floating geo.

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/yvmY5




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.