To Quad or Not To Quad - Page 2 - Simply Maya User Community

# 16 25-02-2010 , 08:09 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: Boston, MA

Posts: 2,314

Me thinks ctbram is beginning to hate Maya.
Just an observation. :p

But yeah, no one complains about one n-gon or tri in a model, but if it looks awful or is ridiculous, then who can blame them?
Also, in Game-modeling, it matters quite a bit. Not one N-gon is excusable. And people outside of Maya point out N-gons just as much as people in Maya, because they are a problem no matter which program.

Example in the image below of awful Ngons and shading.

I mean really, there is a limit!
(That is a dramatization, but I have seen almost exactly that before, in fact, worse)

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: fff.jpg
Views: 219
Size: 39.6 KB
ID: 43843

Environment Artist @ Plastic Piranha
www.joopson.com

Quote

# 17 25-02-2010 , 10:48 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: Michigan, USA

Posts: 2,998

and what about my post suggests I hate maya?

I do not hate maya. I have invested a great deal of time learning maya and providing solutions to modeling problems and tutorials on this site using maya.

But Maya is not perfect and it is falling behind the technology curve. Do I want to switch to a package with more up to date tools and workflow? To be honest no! I would far prefer to see those tools and technology brought into Maya then bury my head in the sand and try to pretend all the other competitors will go away on their own.

I really am growing quite weary of the ngon and triangle debate. I can show just as absurd an example of geometry with hundreds of sided ngons that renders flawlessly! Would I recommend it? NO! The point is there is NO single one-sided answer to this question!

Does a model have to be ALL quads? In some cases -mostly related to game engines - yes, in many other cases, no. Can a model have ngons without rendering issues and even to create desired topology? It most certainly can! Look at the bottle cap topology thread on this site or the gold ball thread. Is it unacceptable to have a triangle in a model? Sure, if it's an unnecessary one! If I have models with triangles then they ARE necessary! I don't put unnecessary geometry in my models.

Does this mean I am advocating - run out and make every model a hodge podge of random pointless ngons and triangles? NO! If this is what you read into my posts then you need to learn to read better!

Does it mean I hate Maya because it has short comings and is not keeping up with the tools and current technology showing up in new packages like Modo? NO! I want to see Maya improved and trying to pretend other packages with better tools do not exist is not going to make them go away. I would rather acknowledge that they exist and either use them collaboratively or better yet see the technology brought into Maya.

How does that make me hate Maya?

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Last edited by ctbram; 25-02-2010 at 11:04 PM.

Quote

# 18 25-02-2010 , 11:12 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: Boston, MA

Posts: 2,314

You clearly missed the :p part of my comment.

I was merely referencing the fact that almost all threads you have made lately have been in reference to Modo one-upping Maya, and I just got the impression that you were trying to show how much cooler Modo is.

No harm was meant by my comment, and I certainly didn't misread anything. I understand precisely what you mean, and meant, but I felt like in posing the question the way you did, you were alienating Maya as the cause of n-gon related issues as opposed to personal error and indifference to the program itself.

Now, Please, I would appreciate you rereading my comments as I have yours. I have stated precisely what you think I am condemning:

...you don't need just quads ever. ...sometimes if you use tris, n-gons you can end up with smoothing errors ... Also, if...rigged, you may get weirder deformation at joints .. Trial and error is the key.. I stay to quads because I am OCD and I like the aesthetics.

Originally Posted by

no one complains about one n-gon or tri in a model, but if it looks awful or is ridiculous, then who can blame them?
Also, in Game-modeling, it matters quite a bit. Not one N-gon is excusable.

Originally Posted by

So there you have it, I deleted unnecessary jumbled words because I found them rather extraneous. I never said once use all quads or use all n-gons. In both posts I stated that n-gons are acceptable in most cases, but not recommended.
So please, before you criticize my reading skills, please bother to read what I said, and note all smileys when used. :p

Thank you,
-Andy

Environment Artist @ Plastic Piranha
www.joopson.com

Last edited by Joopson; 25-02-2010 at 11:18 PM.

Quote

# 19 26-02-2010 , 12:14 AM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Niagara Falls, Canada

Posts: 5,310

Rule of thumb... Quad as much as you can. If you need 3 or 5 sided put in a place that:

A) Doesn't move much
B) Out of sight

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination, knowledge is limited, imagination encircles the world. (Albert Einstein)

https://www.artstation.com/kurtb

Quote

# 20 26-02-2010 , 12:56 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: Bowling Green. Kentucky U.S.A.

Posts: 810

I start a thread for a general discussion of a oddly debated topic, Quads or no, and we all decide that its time to begin being upset wiht eah other, for shame.

Is it not possible to just, discuss a topic like this and do so with both good humor and the knowing that future modelers might read this post and one day take some usefull knowledge away from it? Why cannot this post develop from " It has to be quads, or nothign" or" Some n-gons are ok" to actual usefull knowledge for the layman or noob modeler, As in, " Where are aceptable places and geometry types to use for Tris" And, " where woudl it be acceptable to use an N-gon".. " what are acceptable ways to turn an ngon into a quad"..

That was the meaning of this thread, Which is what i attempted to convey up there on page one wher ei said i thought perhaps we could discuss it from different points of view for those whom need to know or are new and do not understand.

So, i am going to give this one more try, to get this converstaion going in the direction it was intended, that would be good for this forum and those who come here to learn.

" To quad or not to Quad"
The true meaning of this question is, and should be " Where is it ok to use n-gons, and tri's".. as well " What differences are there in the ability to use quad vs tri vs n-gon geometry in other software", as well " Lets show examples of how we rid ourselves of N-gons or Tri's in an area that needs all quads"..

I have been modeling long enough to know when it is ok to use these and when it isn't, or where to put them, or how not to have them if necessary, So i do believe has CT, and Joopson. But why my two friends, do we not stop tryign to say who is right or wrong, and start showing -WHAT- is right or wrong.

Edit: Thank you Kurt, i posted this before i saw your reply.

Thank you
g-man

Follow My Business
On The Web!
Or
On Facebook!

Last edited by G-Man; 26-02-2010 at 12:59 AM.

Quote

# 21 26-02-2010 , 01:47 AM

As Zbrushiac sounds stupid!
Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: Derby

Posts: 1,241

Well, to be honest I generally take advantage of Maya's ability to handle N-gons, lone-verts, and generally messy meshes. When you're roughing out a mesh, you don't really want to worry about your mesh being in all quads, and that it flows perfectly... that comes later. Until recently Blender couldn't even handle N-gons, only Quads ans Tris. Some people said it was a good thing, that it "kept you in-line". But I found it a big disadvantage. But that depends on the modeler's methods.

But for the final piece you generally want it to be in all quads, but then again, it all depends on what you're modeling, what it's going to be used for, will it be smoothed, etc. If it's a hard-surface model a lot of the time you can get away with Tri's, as a lot of the surfaces generally don't deform.

A lot of the time when your modeling with a budget you may be forced to use a Tri. Example: You have an edge running up a character's leg, it's forming some important detail in the foot... at the moment it's been terminated, in an Tri, at the top of his leg. In order to complete the loop you have to continue the edge up his back, over his head and through a complex maze of edge-loops you have on the face. Sometimes it just adds too much Geo, or gets in the way, pinches, forces you to rearrange all the Geo. Or you can re-route it side ways, but that's going to put a corner in your mesh, diverting resolution where you might not want it. So, at this point, the best thing to do is to leave it as a Tri, but move it to a place where it won't been seen, or wont deform much. Such as the small of the back.

As for N-gons, I never really find them necessary. They can usually be converted to quads or Tris... or a mix of both.

www.stevenegan-cgi.com

"Your weapons are no match for ours! People of Mars, surrender!"
"Um, this isn't Mars. This is Earth."
"Earth? Earth-with-nuclear-weapons Earth?"
"Yes."
[long pause] "Friend!!"

Quote

# 22 26-02-2010 , 05:11 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: Bowling Green. Kentucky U.S.A.

Posts: 810

Thanks steve.

I am not A organic modeler so i cant comment on good or bad places to hide or stick tri's or n-gons there,

I do know however that sometimes for a hard surface model, that an Ngon on a planar surface might be the least expensive and sometimes best way to go. its rare, bu i have encountered the situation once or twice.

There are times that with hard surface modeling on a mesh to be smoothed, you end up getting unwanted creasing in an area on teh other side of the model trying to complete the edge loop to keep it from being an n-gon, or you could do the method that gives a similar effect of extruding a face in and just completing the edges and deleting others as necessary to stop the edge loop on the face outside of where it is used for what ever purpose ( hard to visually explain what i mean here)
though sometimes that causes problems of its own as well.

I Do agree with you that using Ngons for a rough shape is sometimes a very good thign and makes the overall flow of a model come much easider, because if you turn this wonky mesh ito quads at an early stage, say..just as soon as you're finished wiht the rough shape, then at that point you are set for the duration of the model.

It is much easier to keep a surface flowing as quads, if you have all quads as close to the beginning of the mesh as you can get. It woudl seem this goes without saying, but i'm not so sure honestly that its something everyone understands.

g-man

Follow My Business
On The Web!
Or
On Facebook!

Quote

# 23 26-02-2010 , 12:34 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: Michigan, USA

Posts: 2,998

meh! I have been suffering with a major tooth ache for the last couple days so I am not in a very good mood.

The quad / ngon / tri debate just irritates me.

Shoot for quads but don't lose sleep over a few necessary tri's or ngons.

Just wanted to make it clear that I do not hate Maya. I just think it is in dire need of some tool updates.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Quote

# 24 26-02-2010 , 12:50 PM

Lifetime Member
Join Date: Feb 2004

Location: Chicago

Posts: 1,712

I dont think there is a right and wrong ..the model simply has to look and do whats intended of it , if that can be achieved with all quad or x amount of ngons is irrelevent really.
Personally i think its better to at least know how to make a model all quad for those occasion when it has to be , its better to know and not use it than need it and not know .
Previous posts have mentioned that z-brush in perticular doesnt do well if the imported model is NOT all quads and in some cases the art director might insist that a model is all quads, for thes reasons alone and there are others i think it good practice to try and stick to quads as much as is possible but it doesnt have to a law ...hehe .

2 x Modeling Challenge Winner

Quote

# 25 27-02-2010 , 09:49 PM

Technical Director
Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 2,988

I used to be in the all-quad camp; as taught by Jay. But after taking a few months-long course by Steven Stahlberg, I can now say that I'm ok with triangles. They create a more organic shape. Granted, you need to know where to put them, and how to use them, but they can be very useful once you do. N-gons in my mind are bad however, as they never seem to do anything but cause problems.

Also, about the zBrush statement with triangles. It is true that zBrush usually throws up with triangles and n-sided polys, but there is a very quick fix to this. Just smooth the model once. The catmull-clark algorithm that Maya uses internally will always create only quads.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Quote

# 26 27-02-2010 , 10:00 PM

EduSciVis-er
Join Date: Dec 2005

Location: Toronto

Posts: 3,374

Originally posted by NextDesign
Just smooth the model once. The catmull-clark algorithm that Maya uses internally will always create only quads.

Originally Posted by

Really... that's pretty interesting.

-stwert

Website - Blog - YouTube - Vimeo - Facebook - Twitter

-->How to Effectively Ask Questions on Forums<--

Quote

# 27 28-02-2010 , 02:05 AM

Lifetime Member
Join Date: Feb 2004

Location: Chicago

Posts: 1,712

ND what a great bit of info regarding the smooth and Z, im an all quad guy myself so not so much an issue so all i need now is to be able to use z-brush ..lol
ive never been able to get on with it ,i always end up screwing up at some point its just a matter of time ..hehe.

2 x Modeling Challenge Winner

Quote

# 28 28-02-2010 , 04:19 AM

Technical Director
Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 2,988

No problem guys. If you guys are a bit techie, and want to read into a bit more, here's a great resource: https://graphics.cs.ucdavis.edu/educa...ull-Clark.html

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Quote