Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related

Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(37 replies)
  Indespensible MaxScripts, Plugins and 3rd Party Tools
(37 replies)
  The allmighty FREE Resources Thread !
(17 replies)
  spam alert!!!
(4886 replies)
  Maxforums member photo gallery index
(114 replies)
  Maxforums Member Tutorials
(89 replies)
  three cheers to maxforums...
(240 replies)
  101 Things you didnt know in Max...
(198 replies)
  A Face tutorial from MDB101 :D
(95 replies) Members Gallery
(516 replies)
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

Is this unnacceptable game geometry?
show user profile  TheShrike

Hey all, I am pretty confused about what to do when going from high res areas of a mesh to low res for normal mapping. The high poly is hidden but needs a lot more geometry to form the belt. The pants are not as complex and have almost no triangles where serious deformations should be happening. So when going from the higher res area of the belt to the pants I need to terminate lots of edge loops and I end up with a lot of triangles. Is what you see in the picture here ok? Or is this type of triangle use unacceptable...?

Thanks for any help.
read 516 times
2/19/2012 10:27:39 PM (last edit: 2/19/2012 10:27:39 PM)
show user profile  LionDebt
What you are doing is welding two vertices together to eliminate an entire edge loop from continuing. While, this works it is creating "Poles" which have a habit of deforming not so nicely.

Depending on how high/low (grey area) you are wanting your model to be, you can turn entire edge-loops around and make them return 'back up' the model. This retains a quad-methodology which I find is useful (as I go on to do further sub-div sculpting or whatever else).

Watch from about 4:27s on this video:

The whole thing is pretty full of useful information however.

Alternatively you can go 100% triangles as this is how game-engines typically interpret 3d models...

Remember, a lot of surface detail can be conveyed through textures (diffuse, normal mapping,s specular), while you can also use tricks such as baking your ambient occlusion from a higher resolution version of the model onto the lower one to keep more lighting;/shadow/contrast detail.
read 508 times
2/19/2012 10:56:29 PM (last edit: 2/19/2012 11:01:50 PM)
show user profile  urgaffel
A good rule of thum is that anything that adds to the silhouette should be modeled in and everythign that doesn't can be normalmapped. Your belt could easily be part of the trousers (unless you're doing some sort of character customisation).

read 487 times
2/20/2012 12:43:03 AM (last edit: 2/20/2012 12:43:03 AM)
show user profile  JonathanH
Is it possible to have the belt be a seperate mesh that just intersects the trousers? Then you wouldn't have to try to merge their topologies.

read 434 times
2/20/2012 4:57:25 PM (last edit: 2/20/2012 4:57:25 PM)
show user profile  advance-software
not a good idea because you'll end up with two layers of polys very close to each other so will see z-fighing artifacts in some configurations.

read 421 times
2/20/2012 5:14:21 PM (last edit: 2/20/2012 5:19:39 PM)
show user profile  LionDebt
You can easily separate the belt, but will have to be careful when animating so that the meshes don't intersect.

As Urgaffel said though, if it doesn't add to the silhouette of the model - you can add it in with textures.
read 412 times
2/20/2012 5:29:14 PM (last edit: 2/20/2012 5:29:14 PM)
show user profile  TheShrike
Thanks for all the replies so far, As advance software mentioned, I think it is best for me to keep them one combined mesh as there would be lots of intersection if animated.

UrGaffel, you are right that I could just make the belt part of the trousers and have the normal map do ALL of the work, but I wanted it to protrude out a little from his body to add some visual interest and depth to the silhouette. I just dont want a prospective employer to look at the triangles in there and shudder because they are totally unacceptable, but I dont really know what is ok and what isnt ok on next gen models these days. I have read that messy areas of Tris are not ok in areas of high deformation, but I doubt they would be bending much where they are there... still kinda wondering if a pro would look at those pants and see major errors..

read 376 times
2/21/2012 9:25:58 AM (last edit: 2/21/2012 9:26:20 AM)
show user profile  advance-software
you can combine both approaches by using multiple detail models - full geometry up close where there's enough z accuracy for no depth calc errors & combined mesh/detail in texture in the medium/low detail representations in the distance.
read 370 times
2/21/2012 10:04:27 AM (last edit: 2/21/2012 10:50:06 AM)
show user profile  Octopuzzy
It's not a pretty mesh.
You are spending way too much of your budget by chamfering edges on something that doesn't matter.
I'd say you should remove the support geometry that has seemingly no function and keep working on the rest of the model.

read 367 times
2/21/2012 10:49:18 AM (last edit: 2/21/2012 10:49:18 AM)
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window