The problem is that modelling this way you cant create LODS easily, they are much harder to create as you would need to remake the model entirely. If you have a quad based mesh you can create LODS for the mesh extremely easily (decimate) which is crucial in game development. Quad based workflow is very very easy, I don't see why you want to go against what the computer prefers to do lol, it just causes unnecessary problems. Also what if someone wanted to, apply a particle system that took the vertex coordinates of the mesh, or apply a vertex distortion shader to the model? It would be scuffed in some areas, this way just simply creates a bad mesh that is very 1 sided and cant be used for a variety of applications (unlike quad based meshes).
If you mesh is quads and you have good topology, you can just keep it and then triangulate the copy...but....and again this is fine for home hobbyists, if you are in a pipeline and are modeling you will not be modeling what YOU want or do whatever you want. If you are a generalist working from home as a freelancer I can promise you that whomever purchases your model which they want like a Ferrari or a screwdriver they will want clean quad topology ready to do what THEY want. Look at Herman and Warwick - they worked freelance and in studios big studios - they might sketch in z brush but they will retool with quads - always. They are told what to model and part of a machine - the person at the top decides. Yes being really good at polygon modeling is a difficult skill to master. The vast vast majority model of of reference, cars, trucks, planes, coffee makers etc.... Go to Turbosquid, check out the models - low poly assets... www.turbosquid.com/ko/3d-models/3d-vinyl-modeled-realistic-model/920660
not every model needs to be ruthlessly optimized, and not every model will ever display an LOD. for example, in a first person shooter this would be a fine technique to use for a viewmodel assuming that you're not breaking your edge flow in an undesired way because the viewmodel is never going to be seen at a distance and there will always only be one viewmodel on screen anyway, the performance impact is negligible. of course quads are more versatile than ngons and should be what you default to, but sometimes you just want to represent a polygon as it is. if you're not either rendering a lot of these models at once or you're doing something seriously wrong it's not like the performance is gonna kill you for rendering a few objects without LODs. as a programmer i very intentionally don't go out of my way to optimize things before i profile, you want to make your project make sense to *you* and/or your teammates before you make it make the most sense for the hardware/shaders its running on. if you notice a problem you can always just open the project file back up
@@corviraptor Its not just about performance, its about the models usability overall. Cant rig, cant add vertex distortion shaders, cant add LOD. Yes 100% if you know exactly what its going to be used for then you can model this way, but why practice such a non versatile method when u can just practice using quads?
@@adamfifield4014 i dont understand the implication that someone who uses ngons sometimes isn't already practicing modeling with quads. anyone doing any 3D modeling whatsoever is going to be working with quads almost the entire time either way, so I don't see the value in acting like taking on a problem from a different angle once in a while is a waste of time. this just feels like a weird thing to get upset about to me
SubD models always have tons of useless edges on flat faces, there's no point in making LODs for a model that has already wasted so much of the tris budget.
Yup. If the ngons are not causing shading issues and where they are will never be animated then they cause no issues. If the model is going to go down the line and be textured modified by another person then usually quads would be preferred.
As a lead Artist at a Games company, if you show me ngons in your folio, it will go against you. Most Leads don't want to see poor topology. Ngons are classed as poor topology when it comes to clean modelling. Your folio should reflect clean modelling, even if your daily work is "simply triangulated" So, no, you don't have to fear them, but you must have the knowledge of what to do when you encounter them if problematic.
What company do you work at if you don't mind sharing? Also when you say ngons does that also include triangulated ngons? Like do you want to only see quads in their portfolio or?
at 10:00 this is actually incorrect, because of the fact there are still two ways to triangulate a quad, even just flipping the direction of the tri it can mess up the shading if you bake your normal map with one export and if that same quad gets triangulated in the opposite direction on a different export or whatever program you bring it into its gonna break, rule of thumb, literally always triangulate before export for 100% consistent shading
I used to rip game assets using Ninja ripper and they were filled with tris and overlapping verts, I could easily get rid of the overlapping ones by merging them by distance but as for the tris, the default algo couldn't get rid of them, as a beginner, I used to think I need all quads and nice edge flow all the time and would spend quite some time manually dissolving and adding edges to make quads, I also thought using Sub D on tris makes them even worse, this misconception went away when I watched one of your videos explaining that sub d on tris aren't bad or anything it just looks weird. Now as long as I don't see any problem with the mesh, I don't even bother fixing anything.
►► Grab our Hard Surface Game Asset Course for only $57 (3 days left) - www.blenderbros.com/the-blender-bros-hard-surface-game-asset-course-2-0
The problem is that modelling this way you cant create LODS easily, they are much harder to create as you would need to remake the model entirely. If you have a quad based mesh you can create LODS for the mesh extremely easily (decimate) which is crucial in game development. Quad based workflow is very very easy, I don't see why you want to go against what the computer prefers to do lol, it just causes unnecessary problems. Also what if someone wanted to, apply a particle system that took the vertex coordinates of the mesh, or apply a vertex distortion shader to the model? It would be scuffed in some areas, this way just simply creates a bad mesh that is very 1 sided and cant be used for a variety of applications (unlike quad based meshes).
If you mesh is quads and you have good topology, you can just keep it and then triangulate the copy...but....and again this is fine for home hobbyists, if you are in a pipeline and are modeling you will not be modeling what YOU want or do whatever you want. If you are a generalist working from home as a freelancer I can promise you that whomever purchases your model which they want like a Ferrari or a screwdriver they will want clean quad topology ready to do what THEY want. Look at Herman and Warwick - they worked freelance and in studios big studios - they might sketch in z brush but they will retool with quads - always. They are told what to model and part of a machine - the person at the top decides. Yes being really good at polygon modeling is a difficult skill to master. The vast vast majority model of of reference, cars, trucks, planes, coffee makers etc....
Go to Turbosquid, check out the models - low poly assets...
www.turbosquid.com/ko/3d-models/3d-vinyl-modeled-realistic-model/920660
not every model needs to be ruthlessly optimized, and not every model will ever display an LOD. for example, in a first person shooter this would be a fine technique to use for a viewmodel assuming that you're not breaking your edge flow in an undesired way because the viewmodel is never going to be seen at a distance and there will always only be one viewmodel on screen anyway, the performance impact is negligible. of course quads are more versatile than ngons and should be what you default to, but sometimes you just want to represent a polygon as it is. if you're not either rendering a lot of these models at once or you're doing something seriously wrong it's not like the performance is gonna kill you for rendering a few objects without LODs. as a programmer i very intentionally don't go out of my way to optimize things before i profile, you want to make your project make sense to *you* and/or your teammates before you make it make the most sense for the hardware/shaders its running on. if you notice a problem you can always just open the project file back up
@@corviraptor Its not just about performance, its about the models usability overall. Cant rig, cant add vertex distortion shaders, cant add LOD. Yes 100% if you know exactly what its going to be used for then you can model this way, but why practice such a non versatile method when u can just practice using quads?
@@adamfifield4014 i dont understand the implication that someone who uses ngons sometimes isn't already practicing modeling with quads. anyone doing any 3D modeling whatsoever is going to be working with quads almost the entire time either way, so I don't see the value in acting like taking on a problem from a different angle once in a while is a waste of time. this just feels like a weird thing to get upset about to me
SubD models always have tons of useless edges on flat faces, there's no point in making LODs for a model that has already wasted so much of the tris budget.
Yup. If the ngons are not causing shading issues and where they are will never be animated then they cause no issues. If the model is going to go down the line and be textured modified by another person then usually quads would be preferred.
As a lead Artist at a Games company, if you show me ngons in your folio, it will go against you. Most Leads don't want to see poor topology. Ngons are classed as poor topology when it comes to clean modelling. Your folio should reflect clean modelling, even if your daily work is "simply triangulated"
So, no, you don't have to fear them, but you must have the knowledge of what to do when you encounter them if problematic.
What company do you work at if you don't mind sharing? Also when you say ngons does that also include triangulated ngons? Like do you want to only see quads in their portfolio or?
very cool thank josh
Always learning, many thanks :)
at 10:00 this is actually incorrect, because of the fact there are still two ways to triangulate a quad, even just flipping the direction of the tri it can mess up the shading if you bake your normal map with one export and if that same quad gets triangulated in the opposite direction on a different export or whatever program you bring it into its gonna break,
rule of thumb, literally always triangulate before export for 100% consistent shading
I used to rip game assets using Ninja ripper and they were filled with tris and overlapping verts, I could easily get rid of the overlapping ones by merging them by distance but as for the tris, the default algo couldn't get rid of them, as a beginner, I used to think I need all quads and nice edge flow all the time and would spend quite some time manually dissolving and adding edges to make quads, I also thought using Sub D on tris makes them even worse, this misconception went away when I watched one of your videos explaining that sub d on tris aren't bad or anything it just looks weird. Now as long as I don't see any problem with the mesh, I don't even bother fixing anything.
You don't have unity , unreal or Godot xd ?
What's your point?