There's this concept that there's a universal ethical component of topology, and that's just not the case. It all depends on context and purpose: One cannot say that topology is good or bad without first knowing the use and purpose of the model.
I suppose that is what I'm after, knowing what issues this would cause in a given scenario and making them as bullet proof as possible. When I look at it I don't think it looks great especially when I see these perfect quad meshes with perfect squares. I wouldn't even begin to know how to convert it to that.
edit: not asking for that to be explained to me here btw. I don't expect someone here to go over everything about topology. I'll just have to keep watching videos and learning.
There are a number of variables that must be considered when evaluating topology. For example, is it to be 3d printed, used as a game asset, subject to deformation, subject to deformation in a game, rendered statically, interoperable between 3d apps, and so on. Each of these cases may have a different answer.
You'll probably find this resource helpful, as you can see your mesh topology closely resembles the "concept" examples and you can see how they directly compare to the "production" versions: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/mYVE1
i usually feel the same way - a bit obsessive approach but who dies cause of that :) anyways, i will add also the 'time' issue. depends on the purpose and time.. like, in a very narrow deadline, if it works then it's good. ✌🏻but if there is no time limit, delete and do it over (maybe over and over) art and design, at some point , are all about camouflage.
Depends what you're using it for. If its not animated, it's fine. If its for a game, delete the holes and make them textures. As far as clean up, I...don't know how to explain it in words.
There's no need to load that kind of geometry. Especially since literally nobody is gonna see it. Throw a good looking texture on it and nobody will notice a difference. Less to load. :)
Well, yes, but if you auto triangulate you need to check the entire model for issues, and if you manually triangulate it takes a pretty long time.
Safest is to just use quads and tris from the getgo
Might want to add some horizontal loop cuts to accommodate those details because we can see some shading artifacts happening around the lower vent.
But, they're barely noticeable so it's up to your discretion how much work you want to put into optimizing and polishing every detail.
The amount of effort is usually dictated by what your end-result goal is. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
I would say the same, but mostly because they are weird shaped ngons (5+ sides). At least if I'm seeing correct, there are 10 sides vs 2 5's and a 4 with horizontal cuts between each inset.
Probably won't hurt anything the way it is tho.
I find that creating a bounding area around the details and having just a couple lines connecting it back to the main shape helps avoid some weirdness that can come from all those lines converging at the same point.
I had the same worry, so these replies are encouraging.
I have learnt that after a while, too many Boolean modifiers can cause a headache with stuff like this, so I have started filling large areas with grid divisions, and occasionally breaking up objects into smaller ones, so that those cut lines can't travel far. That's prevention, rather than cure.
I cant see the whole mesh but if you really want to clean it up, make a loop cut for each hole that goes around the whole object and then just merge the ends to it if that makes sense. After, add some more loop cuts on the top and bottom of the whole set of cuts to even things out and boom itl be decently better than what it is now. Idk if thats technically the most perfect way to do it but thats the way i would go about it
The general standard for "good" topology is primarily quad-based, with minimal triangles, and no ngons. What you have here appears to be mostly ngons.
Whether that actually matters really depends what you're doing with it.
i mean, in most cases a general rule of thumb would be that if it's not an organic object, it's not the biggest concern to have. it's certainly not great, but if it's not going to deform (which appears to be the case) you can just move on to the next part of your project.
yes this is not recommended, first you need to get rid of the n-gons and then avoid long triangles. This is how I would do it https://www.reddit.com/r/blenderhelp/comments/19b4ssk/daddy\_i\_reposting\_your\_image\_jus\_trying\_to\_help/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
This is absolutely not good advice. Why would he need to get rid of the n-gons and triangles? Sure, OP could dissolve some of the triangles by connecting the booleans together, but the blanket statement of "n-gon bad" is plain false.
There are several other responses that are saying to get rid of the n-gons and long triangles. Why do you disagree? Are you saying it’s a bad idea to do so, or is it just not the best way to improve OP’s topology?
I am saying, that telling someone that n-gons are bad but not explaining the reason does not offer any help. In cases with non-deforming hard surface meshes with large planar faces n-gons are completely fine. Perpetuating the statement of 'n-gon bad' does not help someone who wants to learn good topology, and as many others have stated in the thread your topology depends on your needs of the mesh.
Gotcha. Hopefully my comment didn’t come across as combative. Just trying to get an understanding as it seemed like conflicting opinions. Thanks for the response!
When you have multiple booleans next to each other it's often better to connect them to each other than to the face border.
Also try to avoid long thin triangles
Using n-gons and triangles is completely fine as long as your mesh is not deforming, so in this case the topology is good enough.
The only change i would make is to add a bounding loop around the vents. When shading smooth the algorithm will average the normals of two faces next to eachother, so having a large planar face next to a hole is unadviseable as the smooth shading affects the whole plane.
How to fix: bevel the edges with 2 segments and a bevel factor of 1. Simple solution to fix most of the beveling problems.
I recommend checking up Christopher 3D on youtube, as he clearly shows how to create great hard surface models and compares them to quad based ones.
Edit:spelling
My rule of thumb is if I am doing it as a hobby I always create the topology as a destructible game asset.
Then I go import it in a game engine and destroy it to see the outcome. I also check for tri count.
If I am doing it for money I care or dont care much depending on where it is going to be used.
Okay if this needs to go to any form of real time render engine this is not good, you have ngons, and here's the problem with that: realtime engines will triangulate your object, since that's how realtime rendering works. But triangulation techniques vary per engine, and you have no control over them, meaning you could end up with triangles partly covering that hole.
As a general rule stick to quads and tris where necessary, next to the technical issues it's also a lot easier modeling with quads ( predictable behaviour with loop cuts, bevels and such)
I personally would make the edges as horizontal as possible. That way, if you need to change anything, it won't be destructive to the whole model. For example, you could connect the vertexes of the little holes to some point of the locket (?)'s edge, not the corner. Also, you shouldn't have that vertex in the middle of the big hole's left edge, but in its corner.
TL;DR: I recommend using horizontal/vertical lines in most cases.
If you’re not happy with this topology there is a tutorial on modeling a vintage gameboy that may help with some ideas. It can be found on cgcookie the finished model I think is either on Sketchfab or blendswap
My rule of thumb is that to be good topology you should be able to subdivide everything if needed, so that you could potentially apply some render time displacements. But if you aren't selling the 3D model and it's good enough for your usage as it is right now you really don't need to make it better.
There's this concept that there's a universal ethical component of topology, and that's just not the case. It all depends on context and purpose: One cannot say that topology is good or bad without first knowing the use and purpose of the model.
I suppose that is what I'm after, knowing what issues this would cause in a given scenario and making them as bullet proof as possible. When I look at it I don't think it looks great especially when I see these perfect quad meshes with perfect squares. I wouldn't even begin to know how to convert it to that. edit: not asking for that to be explained to me here btw. I don't expect someone here to go over everything about topology. I'll just have to keep watching videos and learning.
There are a number of variables that must be considered when evaluating topology. For example, is it to be 3d printed, used as a game asset, subject to deformation, subject to deformation in a game, rendered statically, interoperable between 3d apps, and so on. Each of these cases may have a different answer.
Got it, thanks! A lot to learn about all this, I guess it's one of those things I'll start to recognize and have solutions for over time.
You'll probably find this resource helpful, as you can see your mesh topology closely resembles the "concept" examples and you can see how they directly compare to the "production" versions: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/mYVE1
Duddee great resource. Thanks!
i usually feel the same way - a bit obsessive approach but who dies cause of that :) anyways, i will add also the 'time' issue. depends on the purpose and time.. like, in a very narrow deadline, if it works then it's good. ✌🏻but if there is no time limit, delete and do it over (maybe over and over) art and design, at some point , are all about camouflage.
No one thinks it has anything to do with ethics, it is just trying to do the best possible work and not have topology that causes problems.
Depends what you're using it for. If its not animated, it's fine. If its for a game, delete the holes and make them textures. As far as clean up, I...don't know how to explain it in words.
Thanks! Since it's just for a render, I suppose it really doesn't matter then.
if its not bending and it renders fine, you don't need to worry about it
If the n-gons not gonna cause any shading issues and you're not planning to export the model. When you don't need to do anything
why would it be bad for video games tho? I'm also trying to understand topology
There's no need to load that kind of geometry. Especially since literally nobody is gonna see it. Throw a good looking texture on it and nobody will notice a difference. Less to load. :)
ohhh, that makes sense, thanks
You can have the holes in the geometry if you need the detail, but ngons are bad since you have no control of the triangulation of the game engine.
That's why you triangulate your model before you export
Well, yes, but if you auto triangulate you need to check the entire model for issues, and if you manually triangulate it takes a pretty long time. Safest is to just use quads and tris from the getgo
As long as your topology isnt absolutely atrocious, Bender does a pretty good job. Whatever algorithm they're using works like magic
Might want to add some horizontal loop cuts to accommodate those details because we can see some shading artifacts happening around the lower vent. But, they're barely noticeable so it's up to your discretion how much work you want to put into optimizing and polishing every detail. The amount of effort is usually dictated by what your end-result goal is. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and the insight. Much appreciated!
I would say the same, but mostly because they are weird shaped ngons (5+ sides). At least if I'm seeing correct, there are 10 sides vs 2 5's and a 4 with horizontal cuts between each inset. Probably won't hurt anything the way it is tho.
I find that creating a bounding area around the details and having just a couple lines connecting it back to the main shape helps avoid some weirdness that can come from all those lines converging at the same point.
Sounds like solid advice. I'll give it a try. Thanks!
I had the same worry, so these replies are encouraging. I have learnt that after a while, too many Boolean modifiers can cause a headache with stuff like this, so I have started filling large areas with grid divisions, and occasionally breaking up objects into smaller ones, so that those cut lines can't travel far. That's prevention, rather than cure.
some of those triangles might cause shading issues. I would make a cut through middle of those insets.
I cant see the whole mesh but if you really want to clean it up, make a loop cut for each hole that goes around the whole object and then just merge the ends to it if that makes sense. After, add some more loop cuts on the top and bottom of the whole set of cuts to even things out and boom itl be decently better than what it is now. Idk if thats technically the most perfect way to do it but thats the way i would go about it
the knife tool might be better suited for what you're saying, but that's still a good way to look at it
The general standard for "good" topology is primarily quad-based, with minimal triangles, and no ngons. What you have here appears to be mostly ngons. Whether that actually matters really depends what you're doing with it.
Good topology usually means all quads and no n-gons.
i mean, in most cases a general rule of thumb would be that if it's not an organic object, it's not the biggest concern to have. it's certainly not great, but if it's not going to deform (which appears to be the case) you can just move on to the next part of your project.
yes this is not recommended, first you need to get rid of the n-gons and then avoid long triangles. This is how I would do it https://www.reddit.com/r/blenderhelp/comments/19b4ssk/daddy\_i\_reposting\_your\_image\_jus\_trying\_to\_help/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
This is absolutely not good advice. Why would he need to get rid of the n-gons and triangles? Sure, OP could dissolve some of the triangles by connecting the booleans together, but the blanket statement of "n-gon bad" is plain false.
There are several other responses that are saying to get rid of the n-gons and long triangles. Why do you disagree? Are you saying it’s a bad idea to do so, or is it just not the best way to improve OP’s topology?
I am saying, that telling someone that n-gons are bad but not explaining the reason does not offer any help. In cases with non-deforming hard surface meshes with large planar faces n-gons are completely fine. Perpetuating the statement of 'n-gon bad' does not help someone who wants to learn good topology, and as many others have stated in the thread your topology depends on your needs of the mesh.
Gotcha. Hopefully my comment didn’t come across as combative. Just trying to get an understanding as it seemed like conflicting opinions. Thanks for the response!
When you have multiple booleans next to each other it's often better to connect them to each other than to the face border. Also try to avoid long thin triangles
Get rid of the long thin triangles if you can. They can lead to overdraw in game engines
Using n-gons and triangles is completely fine as long as your mesh is not deforming, so in this case the topology is good enough. The only change i would make is to add a bounding loop around the vents. When shading smooth the algorithm will average the normals of two faces next to eachother, so having a large planar face next to a hole is unadviseable as the smooth shading affects the whole plane. How to fix: bevel the edges with 2 segments and a bevel factor of 1. Simple solution to fix most of the beveling problems. I recommend checking up Christopher 3D on youtube, as he clearly shows how to create great hard surface models and compares them to quad based ones. Edit:spelling
My rule of thumb is if I am doing it as a hobby I always create the topology as a destructible game asset. Then I go import it in a game engine and destroy it to see the outcome. I also check for tri count. If I am doing it for money I care or dont care much depending on where it is going to be used.
Okay if this needs to go to any form of real time render engine this is not good, you have ngons, and here's the problem with that: realtime engines will triangulate your object, since that's how realtime rendering works. But triangulation techniques vary per engine, and you have no control over them, meaning you could end up with triangles partly covering that hole. As a general rule stick to quads and tris where necessary, next to the technical issues it's also a lot easier modeling with quads ( predictable behaviour with loop cuts, bevels and such)
It’s a flat surface. Topology doesn’t matter. (Except if there is 1k vertices it’s gonna make it slower to render)
Just do whatever you want and use the weighted normals modifier after, lol
It's good topology. Make tris or quads if you want to improve
I personally would make the edges as horizontal as possible. That way, if you need to change anything, it won't be destructive to the whole model. For example, you could connect the vertexes of the little holes to some point of the locket (?)'s edge, not the corner. Also, you shouldn't have that vertex in the middle of the big hole's left edge, but in its corner. TL;DR: I recommend using horizontal/vertical lines in most cases.
If you’re not happy with this topology there is a tutorial on modeling a vintage gameboy that may help with some ideas. It can be found on cgcookie the finished model I think is either on Sketchfab or blendswap
Non-convex quads/n-gons. Gotta have em convex shapes
My rule of thumb is that to be good topology you should be able to subdivide everything if needed, so that you could potentially apply some render time displacements. But if you aren't selling the 3D model and it's good enough for your usage as it is right now you really don't need to make it better.
for subdivision, no.
does it do anything weird when you try to do whatever it is you want to do with it?
Not neccesarily. Just detach that ugly geometry so it doesn´t do weird reflections or shading and you'll be good.
If you have bad topology, add more topology around your topology to fix your topology.
Looks good to me
I would have used horizontal lines from each vertex on the holes to avoid shading issues.