Who needs N-gons?


#1

What’s the use of N-gons if they suffer the same problems as tríangles in HyperNURBS…?

Why not vote for Triangle support instead?

3dsMax supports Tri’s, right?


#2

You are joking, right?


#3

Hi Kirl,
C4D supports quads and tris - you might have misunderstood something?!

Cheers


#4

Heh… I’m talking about the shading artifacts that triangles produce. :slight_smile:

It should be possible to fix that, right?

If not, why not…?


#5

Ah, well unfortunately, due to the nature of the sudivision algorythm, it’s not possible. Quads behave well, triangles don’t (most of the time). N-Gons won’t solve this, but will allow you to build a model more easily, drafting the rough shapes, after which you can start to cut up your model until you have only quads where you want them to be. In other words: n-gons will give you better control over the structure of your quad-mesh.

There’s another advantage of course: if you have n-gons, then you can extrude (loft, …) complex splines without ending up with tonloads of tesselated geometry on your caps.

Tot op het Nederlandse forum;)
Cheers,
BaRa

EDIT: it seems to be possible after all to generate quads with a subdivision algorythm, even if you happen to have polygons with 3, 5, or whatever uneven number of CV’s. I did a quick test in Maya, and no matter what combination of vertices in a polygon I had, the conversion to Subdivision surfaces and the conversion back to polygons gave me only quads as an endresult.


#6

I may well be a bit off topic here, but Cinema also generates quads when using the Hypernurbs subdivide command. Or isn’t this what you were talking about?

I often use this just to see how tris can be turned into quads.


#7

Yes, Cinema’s HN generates only quads, but that’s not the issue. This issue is whether a mesh containing tris or ngons can be smoothed without distortion. In most cases the answer is no, although it depends upon the particular mesh and the algorithm used.


#8

It seems I need to re-read my messages before posting them. Of course Sub-D generates quads - stupid me. My intended point was that Maya, even with n-gons, still produced decent quads after tesselation. I was missing the point all together. Time I have some sleep - but learning BP comes first !

Snoooorrreee …


#9

“Who needs N-gons?”

Me.


#10

Thanks for the explanation Brammelo, unfortunatly it’s what I had guessed. There’s just no way around this thing, is there… :sad:

Doesn’t Max handle triangles better…? :curious:


#11

Originally posted by Kirl
Doesn’t Max handle triangles better…?

it doesn’t, as long as you use polygons you’ll always have to face it, tris should be avoided


#12

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
[B]“Who needs N-gons?”

Me. [/B]

Still, you seem to manage a very clean mesh without them from what I have seem ThirdEye.


#13

Originally posted by flyingP
Still, you seem to manage a very clean mesh without them from what I have seem ThirdEye.

Thanks :slight_smile: anyway i’d be a lot faster with ngons :wink:


#14

it is a decent point imho. I mean if the renderer evntually tellelsates everything into tris, why can’t it smooth them well?

If its all triangles why won’t it work?

I mean even if it were a flexablity issue and the quads could be “bent” cut in two. You can still cut a tri.

Anyway I mean I know its never gonna work. I just though I would throw this out there.


#15

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
Thanks :slight_smile: anyway i’d be a lot faster with ngons :wink:

OK, but is that the case though, as far as I understand it (from someone with no experience with N-gons), one is still faced with the same problem of having to come up with a clean mesh built up (as much as possible) of quads, wouldn’t that take time even with N-gons.


#16

Yes ngons still need to be cleaned up, but a big factor is when and how often, I mean ngons don’t reallly need to be touched till the end of the modeling process if they aren’t working, but with a quad/tri architecture like ours, anytime you split an edge you have to clean before continuing. There is the real difference imo between ngons and our architecture, overall itsjust a bit of a timesaver for me. I still go for as many quads as possible, and having ngons doesn’t make my models any better, its simply a more efficient system for me. However one problem with this, is many modeler get lazy and don’t bother tidying up their meshes, of course thats only necessary if its for animation models as well, otherwise for stills you can have polys strewn wherever you want.


#17

Originally posted by Kaiskai
However one problem with this, is many modeler get lazy and don’t bother tidying up their meshes, of course thats only necessary if its for animation models as well,

OK now that’s what I was interested to hear, and what I had expected.


#18

another ngons discussion?, I wonder if maxon has gotten the hint yet :smiley:


#19

Originally posted by squidinc
another ngons discussion?, I wonder if maxon has gotten the hint yet :smiley:

Actually the more I think into this the more I am beginning to wonder if we have gotten the hint, N-gons, or quads and tri’s, but the number of points are the same? or am I misunderstanding this?. Sorry if I am asking stupid questions here but this is an issue in the meantime that I’d rather like to understand.


#20

Also keep in mind that ngons are very important for mechanical modeling, where you typically don’t use hyperNurbs. Ngons allow you to make fillets and chamfers that would look like pure sh*t with our quad/tri limitation.