Home Technical Talk

Best practice to create good topology

Hello guys,
I'm a beginner, I'm learning 3ds max, I've modeled a simple object and now I'm in the UV Mapping step.

My model has several parts so that together they form the object in question.

Fits the UV mapping of each of them separately using the Unwrap UVW modifier.

Now that you have all my UV, what is the best practice from now on to join these UVs, because each part has its scale and can work in other software like Photoshop, Substance Painter, Unreal, etc.

Do I have to merge all parts using attatch? Or boolean? How do you have more organized my UVs?




Replies

  • Obscura
    Offline / Send Message
    Obscura grand marshal polycounter
    Yeah you should attach them, and organize the uvs. Not sure if it matters for you but you have a bunch of useless geometry (the vertical edges that goes down on the top part, they do nothing), and  the middle part of the stand has some very nasty topology.

    Also, next time if you have such a question, please post it in the technical talk, instead of the PP where people showcases wips and finished work.
  • rondinellimorais
    Thanks for answering. About a geometry, what vertical edge are you talking about? It's important to me, a better geometry, as I mentioned, I'm a beginner. So please tell me how best still the geometry of my objects.

    And sorry for posting here.
  • Eric Chadwick
    Moved to Technical Talk for you.

    The purple wireframe is looking poorly modeled, because it has a single vertex in the middle of the surface with a bunch of long thin triangles connected to it. This usually creates shading errors when a surface is lit. For better shading, it's better to have more uniform polygons, like you have in the green parts of your lamp.

    To combine the UVs together, select all the models, then add a UVW Unwrap modifier, go into Edit UVWs mode and use the Pack tool.
  • Obscura
    Offline / Send Message
    Obscura grand marshal polycounter
    Here is an image of which edges can be removed without changing the shading or the shape at all - there are a lot more, but these guys does literally nothing:

  • rondinellimorais
    Hello folks, @Eric Chadwick thank you for move my post.

    I did as you say, @Eric Chadwick and @Obscura, I did make a retopology in my model. Far from perfect, but, much better.

    Let me know if I can further improve my topology.


  • Mark Dygert
    The simplification you did to the horizontal edge loops, can also be done to the vertical edge loops, especially on the upper and lower cap details.
  • Steamy_Steve
    Offline / Send Message
    Steamy_Steve triangle
    Hello folks, @Eric Chadwick thank you for move my post.

    I did as you say, @Eric Chadwick and @Obscura, I did make a retopology in my model. Far from perfect, but, much better.

    Let me know if I can further improve my topology.


    You can.
    You eliminated those bad triangles from the "arm" that holds up the lantern, but now you have what is called an "nGon", which can be even worse than triangles.
    An nGon is basically any polygon with more than 4 vertices.

    The best practice of "best practices" is trying to make a model that only has quads (4-vertex polygons). It's not always possible, but ideally....

    One way to solve the "arm" issue would be this:


    Trace edges that form a loop all around the arm as I marked in the screenshot.
    Same for the plaque that holds the arm, you must absolutely divide that nasty ngon into quads.
  • rondinellimorais
    Hello folks!
    I'm so sorry, for long time without responses I had a problem but now I'm back.

    @Mark Dygert thank you, I'm going to fix this topology as you said

    @Steamy_Steve "nGon"? right.

    I did begin to fix this nGons, but I can't eliminate all triangles. Now I have a good topology, or do I have to eliminate the triangles?



    Any problem in leaving those long quards?

    thank you.
  • Steamy_Steve
    Offline / Send Message
    Steamy_Steve triangle
    [....]
    I did begin to fix this nGons, but I can't eliminate all triangles. Now I have a good topology, or do I have to eliminate the triangles?

    [_img_]

    Any problem in leaving those long quards?

    thank you.

    As always, there's an ideal form and then there's real world. And real world is a b*tch!

    Here's the point: usually you don't just cut your model's edges into tens of vertices to get a smooth curve. You place some key vertices (like in a bezier curve), some creasing (to keep certain edges sharp), and then you hit the suvdivision function.
    You can have a glimpse (just a preview) of the subdivision result by pressing "3" (numbers above letters, not numeric keypad) with your object selected.
    By pressing "2" you can see the smoothed model with a double cage composed by both the original and the smoothed vertices/edges.
    "1" gives you back your low-poly, solid view.

    Triangles are not the devil. Inanimated objects can have triangles, as they won't get deformed, but it's not good when the triangles are very stretched.
    Ideally, you would want to make only tirangles that are the exact half of a square. Unlikely, in this real world of ours.
    Just, the less they're stretched/squished, the better. And NO convex quads!!
    It has to do with rasterization and pixels....or something like that.

    Anyway!
    Here's an example of how to distribute quads in that object:


    Personally, I would reduce the number of vertices along the curves, you dont need that many.
    Btw, if you select some consecutive edges, or even an edge-loop, by hitting Ctrl+Del you delete both edges AND vertices.
    By pressing Del only, instead, you delete the edges, but the vertices remain, and this can cause all sorts of problems (nGons!!).
  • musashidan
    Offline / Send Message
    musashidan high dynamic range
    As to your original question, you can either attach all objects to a single mesh and apply unwrapuvw mod and use the rescale elements tool in the UV editor.

    Or you can leave them all as separate objects and apply a universal unwrap. Just select all objects and apply the unwrap modifier. Then use the same rescale elements tool. Rescaling all your islands will normalise the texel density, meaning your UVs will have a consistent ratio.

    @Steamy_Steve please, please stop perpetuating the N-gons myth. It is so prevalent on the net that new modelers avoid them like the plague without actually understanding their reasoning. Whether subdivided or triangulated N-gons become either quads or tris. You should probably try to understand your own reasoning before giving misleading advice. I'm not trying to be a dickhead, but the amount of time that people waste(I have lost many days of my life by obsessing over N-gons in a past life) worrying about, and cleaning up, N-gons is scandalous.

    As this is a game art forum we can assume that the OP wishes to make a game asset by way of high/low bake. N-gons are absolutely ZERO issue for either the game-res or high-res creation. In fact, they are one of the most useful things that I utilise in my hard-surface method.

    The main thing to be concerned about is surface/vertex shading. If the shading is correct on both the high/low final models then everything is good.
  • rondinellimorais
    I changed the post title because the discussions have taken a direction that has more to do with the new title now.

    About the UVS I understood! Does not seem to be a problem at the moment, I want to turn my attention to the topology of the model
  • Steamy_Steve
    Offline / Send Message
    Steamy_Steve triangle
    [....] please stop perpetuating the N-gons myth [....]
    You'd say they behave well in ALL situations?
  • ActionDawg
    Offline / Send Message
    ActionDawg greentooth
    [....] please stop perpetuating the N-gons myth [....]
    You'd say they behave well in ALL situations?
    He didnt say that either, false dichotomy my man. There are many cases where using ngons and triangles results in better shading for high poly models. They are also tremendously helpful for low polys when capping off broad flat areas. Do some digging on more instances of how and when to use them.


    On another note, I use the type of quad you've drawn here constantly for high poly models. It's often the cleanest solution for a low poly as well, where you'd just split it into two triangles to ensure it remains convex.
  • rondinellimorais
    Ok I should avoid nGons whenever possible but I should not despair and triangles are not the devil.

    I removed somethings edges it as recommended, I think now the topology looks good, please take a look:



    also, is it recommended to have a topology like this?


  • CreativeSheep
    Offline / Send Message
    CreativeSheep polycounter lvl 8
    The top looks good, add an edge loop around the edge to tighten; you've made progress, nice job.
  • rondinellimorais
    The top looks good, add an edge loop around the edge to tighten; you've made progress, nice job.
    Thank you so much, comments like yours to anyone who is beginner is a big help.

    But which of the topologies in the my last post is the most appropriate?


  • CreativeSheep
    Offline / Send Message
    CreativeSheep polycounter lvl 8
    Most definitely number one. Some would say number two is good for possible game creation but personally number one is best.
  • Kanni3d
    Offline / Send Message
    Kanni3d ngon master
    It depends what you're target is... If it's for game-res/optimization, then 2 would be more ideal (although could be pushed further to be more optimal).
  • rondinellimorais
    Hello guys, finally I finished the topology of my model. thank you all for help me until here. This is the result of my job:



     :) 
Sign In or Register to comment.