View Full Version : attach or merge objects
07 July 2010, 07:18 PM
not sure how to ask this question, but here goes.
ok I have been watching a few video tuts. In a couple of tuts a model made of several pieces was created , after the model was complete, uv mapping, smoothed and so on, the model was merged or attached together to create a single object. Since the objects become one object does that not create bad geometry? Is that a common practice? I hope someone understands this question.
07 July 2010, 12:30 AM
Exemples of what you mean would help. Simple attaching wont screw up topology, if you decide to attach both together and start bridging faces in a sloppy way then yeah, you will have bad topo...
07 July 2010, 02:32 AM
Many things quite-logically consist of parts. You intend to treat the various parts separately, and it makes good sense to do so. Therefore, in those cases it works well to treat "the object" as a collection of objects. (In the Blender environment, you bundle them all into a group. You can link to the group, move the group around, work with it as "a single thing" using their so-called dupliGroup facility, and so on.)
Obviously, if there was a compelling reason to need to treat everything as a single object or a single mesh, you could do so.
But, either way, I think that you need to act upon what you decide that you need to do, in whatever situation confronts you at the time.
07 July 2010, 07:52 PM
This does help.
I was mostly referring to a static non moving prop. for example a fence made up of many boards. you would have the post, then you would have pieces that run horizontal, those could all be combined into one object. But if you had gate on the fence, the gate would be grouped with the fence, so it would be two objects in single group.
Now if the gate was not going to move or be rigged then it could be attached to the fence to make a single object.
07 July 2010, 08:24 PM
If I was going to build "a picket fence," then I would probably carefully construct a set of fifteen or twenty boards; maybe more. Then, I would assemble the fence using the "duplivert" feature of my package (Blender), which allows me to create duplicate instances of my boards. I'd arrange the boards with different orientations and try to maneuver them so that a repetitive pattern was not overtly visible.
The various objects would be arranged into parent-child instances if I needed anything to "move when its parent moved," and in any case, all of the objects that made up the fence would be "a group."
(Blender does give me the one-way prerogative to "make dupli's real," although I cannot reverse the process.)
Object instances are lightweight and therefore cheap, because every one of them "refers to" the same set of object-data. If I can arrange things in such a way that I deem that to be "okay," then there are obviously some nice advantages to it. (I can use the extra memory for something else.)
Now, one other thought to think about is: at least in Blender, an object and a mesh are two different things. More than one mesh can be part of the same object.
So... "you actually have lots of options." And I daresay that none of them are "categorically wrong, or right." These are simply things that you, and the others on your team, must consider. Decide upon an approach, and think it through carefully from all the various angles, and then pursue that approach consistently. If you are working alone, be sure to follow the same practice everywhere within the project. If you are working in a group, be sure the entire team does the same.
07 July 2010, 12:43 PM
Here is a link to what i am talking about.
The app. being used is Hexagon 2.5.
I use Hexagon mostly
07 July 2010, 12:43 PM
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.