Triangles vs. Squares (WAS: Real Nurbs ?) 2004-02-13 - By Jonathan G. Koehn
Back
This depends somewhat on the render engine.
As far as mesh file size is concerned quads would probably be better due.
To needing to store fewer face info. Instead of one face for a quad it would
be
two for a triangle. Also it is perhaps best if they are planar faces.
As far as on the rendering side depends on the engine, some perhaps can
handle quads
just as fast as tris in that case quads would be better due to the fact of 2
tris = 1 quad.
Then you get into another area of complex, convexs faces, where edges
overlap each other,
I probably would stay with quads for SubDiv, and tris or quads for other
things. such as game models,
stuff where you won't subdiv, though tris probably be best for game models
more control perhaps that way.
Best,
-- -- Original Message -- --
From: "Dave III" <d3av3e@(protected)>
To: <truespace@(protected)>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: [TSML] Triangles vs. Squares (WAS: Real Nurbs ?)
> Allow me to pounce on this statement to ask a question that has been
bugging
> me for a long time.
>
> When modeling from scratch, is it better to work with square faces or
> triangle ones? Is there, I don't know, greater stability over the size of
> the mesh's file? Does it render better one way or the other? Does it
matter,
> or is it purely a point of personal preference?
>
> Dave III
>
>
> > Actually, all geometry gets converted to triangles at render time.
> > Modeling
> > with triangles isnt really a problem, it's 5-sided faces that give
> > problems
> > when deforming a mesh, as you don't know where the renderer will draw
the
> > triangles when it converts the mesh.
> >
> > |andrew|
>
>
>
|
|
