Removing Tri's?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2013   #1
Question Removing Tri's?

Hello all!

I am modeling an airplane and having an issue with the nose and front glass panel.

I can't seem to find a technique to remove a set of triangles.
(see attached picture)



Does anyone have a suggestions on how to remove these, technique wise with the split polygon tool to make them quads? I can't seem to figure out how to route the edges...

Thank you!
Josh
 
Old 05 May 2013   #2
Half assed solution:
For the nose, simply select the edges that form the top and bottom of the quad and collapse them. You could do the same for the front window, select and collapse.

For more solutions take a look at this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110101...read.php?t=8000
__________________
 
Old 05 May 2013   #3
Looks pretty simple. Just add some loops, like this:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Untitled-1.jpg (73.5 KB, 21 views)
 
Old 05 May 2013   #4
If you go for Darth-Biomech's solution, don't foget to even out the geometry, adding edges close together will create pinching, especially noticeable in a smooth surface such as an airplane. I'd rather have poles than forcing quads in such a manner.
__________________
 
Old 05 May 2013   #5
Thank you all for the advice!

I do need a bit of clarification, right now I have yet to force the quads. I do plan on subdividing for when I start rendering.

I have always been under the impression that poles are not typically a good idea to leave. Although with the nose cone it seems that keeping the poles results in a cleaner sub-d result. Is this an instance of, if it works use it situation?

Thank you all again!
Josh

Last edited by joshuagilbreath : 05 May 2013 at 09:55 PM.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #6
It's usually a matter of "if it looks good" then it's the right way. Like i said it's still a valid approach to force them into the mesh, but remember that using fewer edgeloops / edge rings will result in a much more perfect shape, simply because the subdivision modifier will average your geometry. The simpler the cage, the smoother the subdvided mesh.

It's a lot easier to subdivide the simple cage a few times, collapse it and then cut in finer details. There's also an approach called double smooth (at least in 3d max) which basically draws on this concept, it's based on smoothing groups and adding two modifiers (one to lock in the cage shape and the other to smooth it). The drawback of double smooth is the polycount will increase drastically, but it's all manageable thanks to the modifiers...plus modern computers don't have problems handling that amount of geo.

Edit: Here's how double smooth works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87I8FpXn3Yc
__________________

Last edited by Psyk0 : 05 May 2013 at 10:08 PM.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #7
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.