Whenever I connect the strips with faces when modelling with this sort of method, I always get some triangles.
>>993644Step 1:During the modeling process, you need to really make sure that when you're about to add a triangleStep 2:Don't
>>993647but what if nothing except a triangle seems to fill the connecting holes between the faces? how do you avoid coming to that stage?
>>993648e.g. the model is just a shitty lump, but often i get this sort of issue when connecting the faces. How do I avoid coming to that stage with the triangle/fill out that hole without fucking up the rest of the topology?In this example, it's easy to just add another face where the triangle is, but with more complex models, you might have a lot more faces attached that you'd have to deal with if you insert more faces/edge loops to help turn the triangle into a quad.
>>993644>>993653- Triangles pinch- 5-edge-NGons sagas long as you understand those attributes and where they will help and hinder you you can use both of them as you wish.
>>993656thank you wise anon
If you're fine with an additional cut into the model:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgCV6WNQEkw
>>993647>>993648It's impossible to model a complex surface without either adding triangles or poles. The thing is any fully quaded surface that has a pole is equally bad as having a triangle as they generate the same kind of pinched topology wherever that odd number of edges meet.The advanced answer is that you can and should use triangles in your models but you should locate them to areas where they are out of the way and necessary to break edge flow. If you go full autism and make a fully quaded surface you will have still have at least many poles as you would've ended up with using triangles efficiently and thus accomplished nothing at all. This holds true for subdivided surfaces as well since a triangle subdivides down to quads but leaving a pole in the topology at the location of the triangle.Pic related demonstrates why 'fully quaded' and surfaces using triangles are effectively the same.
>>993691Also remember that every surface is always all triangles and we only model in quads because pairing and squaring them up into loops that follow the curvature of the thing we're making simplifies visualization for us and structures the surface in such a way it will shades and deform predictably.Your actual concern whether using quads or triangles is to not end up with this sort of issue as the red triangle at the location of that triangle or pole, Looking at a model with the isoline turned off also highlights why you have the very same problem as using a triangle at every single quad-pole.
>>993666spbp
>>993691>>993692thank you anon!
Yeah, that happens.
>>993691>It's impossible to model a complex surface without either adding triangles or poles.that's not true, though. That's literally the entire point of topology: Anything with no holes can be deformed into a sphere without altering topology.
>>1000827No anon, you are wrong, every mesh with an extrusion or inset has poles on it, because extrusion causes 3 and 5 edge poles
>>1000839you don't need to extrude or inset
>>1000827>Anything with no holes can be deformed into a sphere without altering topology.You have two problems: A) Good luck modelling anything worthwhile out of a spherical topology. B) A sphere has poles too.>>1000883Functionally you will. Anywhere you break the flow of polygons you'll end up with a pole somewhere. A box has poles, a sphere has poles, a capped cylinder has poles. only manifold/closed shape I can think of that is fully quaded with no poles is the torus.
