Sorry I dont know if this is the right section or what but I noticed everyone keeps saying about tri counts but my teacher at college tells us to always use quads...
Counting tris and using quads are to completely different things really. The reason as to why he tells you to use quads is because of smoothing/deformation etc. But as it comes down to performance, the engines don't count in quads, it counts in tris.
One polygon as you know can be 2 tris, and it can be 1 tris, and it could be any amount of tris, the 3d-app won't be able to tell the difference. So if you're giving someone a polygonal count of a model, it very vaguely represents how performance-draining it is. While as tris would be more exact.
Also, does he really say 'ALWAYS used quads'? Because that's just a horribly un-nuanced statement. I know so many people who use that as a mantra, and it's never a good thing.
I wouldn't be surprised MightyPea. I remember when I went through Full Sail the teachers were obsessed with keeping things quads. To the point where I know people I graduated with who still freak out when they see Tris like its some kind of sloppy anti-christ geometry.
Quads are best for edgeflow, and subdivision. If you are making a model that is intended for subdivision rendering, sticking strictly to quads will allow you to UV-map your lower-polycount model. If you use Tris in subdivision modelling, it usually screws up the UV coordinates of the higher-poly model that is extrapolated from your lower-poly work. So your only option at that point is to UV map the high-poly model, which makes everything more difficult.
The important thing to remember is the point of the model you are working on. A model that is intended for subdivision and eventual high-poly rendering through subdivision probably should be kept as quads only. Quads are also better for sculpting, so if you are going to export your model for sculpting in Z-Brush, Mudbox, or Silo 3D, sticking to quads is the way to go.
But when you begin looking at getting your model in-game, it's time to throw those quads right out the window. Any and all in-game models will be broken down into Tris. It doesn't even matter if the engine in question supports quads, it's still going to break down those quads into tris for animation and rendering. No matter how you model initially, game optimization means its Tri-time.
Replies
One polygon as you know can be 2 tris, and it can be 1 tris, and it could be any amount of tris, the 3d-app won't be able to tell the difference. So if you're giving someone a polygonal count of a model, it very vaguely represents how performance-draining it is. While as tris would be more exact.
/edit: too late, darn
The important thing to remember is the point of the model you are working on. A model that is intended for subdivision and eventual high-poly rendering through subdivision probably should be kept as quads only. Quads are also better for sculpting, so if you are going to export your model for sculpting in Z-Brush, Mudbox, or Silo 3D, sticking to quads is the way to go.
But when you begin looking at getting your model in-game, it's time to throw those quads right out the window. Any and all in-game models will be broken down into Tris. It doesn't even matter if the engine in question supports quads, it's still going to break down those quads into tris for animation and rendering. No matter how you model initially, game optimization means its Tri-time.