Why is topology still such a conundrum?!

CarlPoly · Mar 2018

Every time I am modeling a curved surface in 3Ds Max and I need to put some sharp corners on it I wonder why I have to worry about the smoothness of the curved surface after applying support loops!?

Just out of curiosity and of course the need to know if there are other software that have solved this topology problem I went ahead and learned ZBrush. Well, it turned out that this is still an annoying problem in hard surface modeling.

My question is; do I need now to learn SOLIDWORKS (or like that) ?! Is it easier in this software to model product without being worried about topology? Is the final render the same quality as objects modeled in 3Ds max? After all what are the big benefits of 3Ds max and other software like that when it comes to modeling products over software like SOLIDWORKS and Fusion360 that are topology worry-free?

Is it the quality of the final render that decides your choice of modeling software? I mean Is it more realistic to model in Max for product shot than in for example SOLIDWORKS?

I will be really grateful to have some feedback because as you might know you can't get a straight answer by searching the Internet and if you think there is an article that address this question please just mention the address.
Thank you

P.S:I mainly model objects and my only concern is the final render of that object.
I am not into low poly modeling (modeling for games).

Thanez · Mar 2018

When you're modeling curves, think of each vertex (on a flat) or each edge (on a 3d surface) as a control point for a curve. When you smooth that curve, it'll be averaged across those control points. Put two close together, and they'll give a sharp edge. If you have uneven control points on a cylinder, it won't render as a cylinder.

If your end product is a render, I'd say spend as little time on topology as you can. Ben Bolton showed a great workflow where you can import a pretty messy model into zbrush, topology-wise, smooth it and export to whatever. Topology is something that you should learn though, without it you'll have a hard time troubleshooting your issues.

Some things are easier to model in cad software. You should try it out and find something that suits you.

My software and workflow choice depends on what the product is.

I really doubt any cad software can match the rendering quality of apps whose selling point is render quality. You can often export models from cad software and use it in other apps.

Axi5 · Mar 2018

Topology will always be a concern in any 3D application you choose as long as it's utilizing polygons. You could try a volumetric modeller such as 3D Coats voxel room but even this will have limitations.

If you only care for the shape and not how easy to deform or adjust then a solid modelling tool like Solidworks or fusion 360 is good. You'll still be affected however, but these programs throw polygons at problems to fix them. If you're doing any real time or artistic 3D models then you're going to want Max or other and or a sculpting tool.

There's no escaping topology wherever polygons are concerned but it's a lot easier these days to navigate around the problems. Zbrush, 3D Coat and Mudbox all have dynamic topology for example.

CarlPoly · Mar 2018

Thanez said:

When you're modeling curves, think of each vertex (on a flat) or each edge (on a 3d surface) as a control point for a curve. When you smooth that curve, it'll be averaged across those control points. Put two close together, and they'll give a sharp edge. If you have uneven control points on a cylinder, it won't render as a cylinder.

If your end product is a render, I'd say spend as little time on topology as you can. Ben Bolton showed a great workflow where you can import a pretty messy model into zbrush, topology-wise, smooth it and export to whatever. Topology is something that you should learn though, without it you'll have a hard time troubleshooting your issues.

Some things are easier to model in cad software. You should try it out and find something that suits you.

My software and workflow choice depends on what the product is.

I really doubt any cad software can match the rendering quality of apps whose selling point is render quality. You can often export models from cad software and use it in other apps.

These are the most useful parts for me in your answer. Thank you so much

"If your end product is a render, I'd say spend as little time on topology as you can."
"Ben Bolton showed a great workflow"
"You should try it out and find something that suits you."
"My software and workflow choice depends on what the product is."

CarlPoly · Mar 2018

Axi5 said:

Topology will always be a concern in any 3D application you choose as long as it's utilizing polygons. You could try a volumetric modeller such as 3D Coats voxel room but even this will have limitations.

If you only care for the shape and not how easy to deform or adjust then a solid modelling tool like Solidworks or fusion 360 is good. You'll still be affected however, but these programs throw polygons at problems to fix them. If you're doing any real time or artistic 3D models then you're going to want Max or other and or a sculpting tool.

There's no escaping topology wherever polygons are concerned but it's a lot easier these days to navigate around the problems. Zbrush, 3D Coat and Mudbox all have dynamic topology for example.

These are the most useful parts for me in your answer. Thank you very much
If you only care for the shape and not how easy to deform or adjust then a solid modelling tool like Solidworks or fusion 360 is good.
If you're doing any real time or artistic 3D models then you're going to want Max or other and or a sculpting tool.

kanga · Apr 2018

CarlPoly said:

...P.S:I mainly model objects and my only concern is the final render of that object.
I am not into low poly modeling (modeling for games).

Just a thought,.... Did you try the ZBrush 2018 version? I have just been testing the new 'project primitive' tool. It looks like you can model anything with it and if static models are your only goal, you could couple it with keyshot to produce some very attractive renders. The tool seems dynamesh based that uses a boolean approach. if your models are for concept or product presentation then using project primitive would mean you would never have to set a loop again.

CarlPoly · Apr 2018

kanga said:

CarlPoly said:

...P.S:I mainly model objects and my only concern is the final render of that object.
I am not into low poly modeling (modeling for games).

Just a thought,.... Did you try the ZBrush 2018 version? I have just been testing the new 'project primitive' tool. It looks like you can model anything with it and if static models are your only goal, you could couple it with keyshot to produce some very attractive renders. The tool seems dynamesh based that uses a boolean approach. if your models are for concept or product presentation then using project primitive would mean you would never have to set a loop again.

No, Kanga! I haven’t checked the latest version of ZBrush yet, but I’ll definitely give it a try. Actually, I spent a great deal of time on ZBrush 4R7, but finally When I learned that hard surface models created in ZBrush would be exported to software like 3Ds Max for retopology I was disheartened.
But if you think that ‘Project Primitive Tool’ in 2018 version is something totally different I will try it for sure. I began learning Solidworks a few days ago...Now, I need to add ZBrush 2018 to my study too!

P.S: Oh yes...Keyshot is just amazing!

kanga · Apr 2018

Well you only really need the dynamesh model (I dont think you would need to retopo), and judging by the beauty shots of models used to publicize ZBush 2018 I think that combo with keyshot sounds like it might do you just fine. You would probably need to use some other ZBrush features as well so your work in ZBrush 4R7 will aid you there. This looks like a keyshot render but Im petty sure it wa done with the poject pimitive tool.:

Image: http://docs.pixologic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_10.jpg

I think this one also:

Image: https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/010/043/258/large/nelson-tai-nelson-tai-917n-004c.jpg?1522249616

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5JChLzmST4

Altea · Apr 2018

The topology in Zbrush is only OK for concepting, renders and 3d printing. You need yet retopologice if you need it in different pipelines.
I also wonder if programs as Fusion 360 could be better for hard surface as it helps to generate both low and high res.

CarlPoly · Apr 2018

kanga said:

Well you only really need the dynamesh model (I dont think you would need to retopo), and judging by the beauty shots of models used to publicize ZBush 2018 I think that combo with keyshot sounds like it might do you just fine. You would probably need to use some other ZBrush features as well so your work in ZBrush 4R7 will aid you there. This looks like a keyshot render but Im petty sure it wa done with the poject pimitive tool.:

Kanga, although I agree that these are amazing hard surface models beautifuly rendered, but I can't remember that I’ve ever seen a close-up shot of a beveled adge of hard surface models done in ZBrush! (Of course We are talking about dynamesh and not Zmodeler)
I mean when it comes to quality of sharpness or smoothness of the edges— specially in close-ups—it seems to me that topology is still a concern even if the final product is just a static render.
Am I wrong?!

CarlPoly · Apr 2018

Altea said:

The topology in Zbrush is only OK for concepting, renders and 3d printing. You need yet retopologice if you need it in different pipelines.
I also wonder if programs as Fusion 360 could be better for hard surface as it helps to generate both low and high res.

Exactly, I wonder too Altea.

Altea · Apr 2018

I think programs as Fusion 360 are currently unavoidable for hard surfaces. This mean another damn program to learn again. Zbrush for hard surface is for concepting, 3d printing and renders and agree not for close ups. But most of the users of hard surface wants more than that and the tools in generic 3d programs has not been updated since ages in a significant way. And when they have been updated is for generating a dirty topology. As wonderful as the booleans in Modo are, they are in the same direction that Zbrush with the same army of dirty triangles everywhere.
I wonder if there are better alternatives to Fusion 360 (Moi, Rhino). Other discussions about this topic is that generally Rhino is outdated and Moi doesn't have history of changes to go back and correct errors. That place Fusion 360 as the best.

pior · Apr 2018

[...] Exactly, I wonder too Altea.
[...] That place Fusion 360 as the best.

Then try it boys, you'll see. It's free.

kanga · Apr 2018

Kanga, although I agree that these are amazing hard surface models beautifuly rendered, but I can't remember that I’ve ever seen a close-up shot of a beveled adge of hard surface models done in ZBrush! (Of course We are talking about dynamesh and not Zmodeler)
I mean when it comes to quality of sharpness or smoothness of the edges— specially in close-ups—it seems to me that topology is still a concern even if the final product is just a static render.
Am I wrong?!

It would depend on what you are modelling and for what end. The render of the car you quoted has some rendering anomalies but I believe it is due to the material reflections, not the sharpness of the detailed edges. You havent mentioned what kind of models you are producing and how much detailing is involved. I picked the car because it of it's size to detail ratio (which is pretty big).

Image: http://www.art-werx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AR03.jpg

Here is a weapon I made with 3dmax super booleans imported into ZBrush and then dynameshed and polished. The polycount is high but it was still workable and keyshot had no problem rendering it. I dont have a super computer.

Image: http://www.art-werx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AR02.jpg

The details are crisp. I dont have a closer view but the model would hold up to close inspection.

I had a look at fusion 360 and it looks like you can make anything with it. It looks like a nurbs system. The advantage of nurbs is the ability you have to create a dimensionaly responsible product. Polygons are an aproximation and they come close but they are not comparable in accuracy with nurbs. The model above was purely monkey see monkey do. So as stated above, great for concept, design presentation or for games, but it is not intended for product production/engineering purposes. Horses for courses.

Why is topology still such a conundrum?!

Replies