View Full Version : How obsessive are you about tri's

09 September 2003, 03:11 AM
Fun little poll here, i wonder just how obsessive people are about tri's in their models. Me, i hunt them down as if they were the spawn of satan, even if it really takes far to much time and you would never seen them anyway, my .....model.... must... be ....quads. I dunno i think im a bit neurotic.

How about you :buttrock: ?

09 September 2003, 06:37 AM
only if it smooths out fine after using a mesh smooth will i keep it there instead of worrying about adding more segments to make it a quad

09 September 2003, 08:19 AM
There are tris, and then there are TRIS :scream:

Long and pointy, needlelike tris - I kill instantly. They practically never smooth the way they should.

Fairly regular ones in a trivial area, and those that evidently won't cause any smoothing problems - I just leave'em where they are.

In some cases, they can even be good to have around to mess up creases and such from time to time.

09 September 2003, 12:38 PM
tris are sometimes necessary, in my limited experience, i have found. like when you have to spread areas of greater suface density into areas of less topology. Or, sometimes the non-coplanarity of a certain "Quad" requires that you divide it by its implicit edge into two tris, at least at first, anyway.

Besides that if you think about it most render engines subdivide everything into tris at render time regaurdless. . . so are they really that bad?

that being said... co-planar quads are necessary if you want the appealing definition of a nice catmull-clark subdivision over your mesh to approximate the correct surface angle.
and i believe the practice of decimating trilaterals is a good way to learn and practice how to handle a mesh.

09 September 2003, 05:55 AM
I try to avoid them as my package uses catmul clark subD and that divides by quads and not tri's,but they are okay to leave in some areas like crease's around a characters eyes and so on.


09 September 2003, 09:27 PM
Well, if you want to render SUBDs in mental ray, you can't have triangles ... so :O

I've got a questions for the pros though.

a) I'm getting into poly modelling but I really need a good tutorial on adding detail (say creases in pants or for head, wrinkles.. that sort of business). At the moment, I go splitting polys and what nots with a bit of planning of course but it can be very hairy.


what is worse
triangles or a point with more than 5 edges leading out. someone said to me that the latter is worse. ?


09 September 2003, 03:25 AM
I use quads, and 5-sided polygons or 5-edge intersections where quads aren't good enough. Triangles turn rather inefficiently into subD's, 4- and 5-sided polygons go more smoothly.


09 September 2003, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by jeremybirn
I use quads, and 5-sided polygons or 5-edge intersections where quads aren't good enough. Triangles turn rather inefficiently into subD's, 4- and 5-sided polygons go more smoothly.


thanks for that jeremy. I've been wondering about that for way too long! :p

09 September 2003, 06:50 PM
jeremy i love you! thats what i am saying everytime and so many people tell me that 5sided polygons are "more evil" then tris

thank you!

Rabid pitbull
09 September 2003, 03:17 PM
For me with tri's I hide them and use as few as possible. The five point star intersection, also doesn't bother me too much either. Mainly just make sure they are flat and not bending.

09 September 2003, 02:08 PM
For some reason i really don't mind a couple tri's here and there.....mostly because xsi's sub d's make life quite simple...;)

09 September 2003, 11:31 AM
I would much rather have a triangle than an n-gon. quads are golden though.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 02:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.