2
$\begingroup$

I have to objects (Face and a nose) I need to join together.

The face and nose

Now I guess I could simply Ctrl+J it and the result would be following Joined objects

But I notice that none of the vertexes are actually joined. Is this a bad practice? The model is going to be imported to Unity, could I run into some troubles? If so, is there a preferred method for combining two objects?

I tried using the Boolean Union, but that would mess up the "face". I was wondering if it would be better to somehow (don't know how) increase the quad density of the close proximity of the "nose" and try boolean again.

Note: The model in the picture will have some animation.

Wireframe

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you "need" to join them together Depends a lot on model. If it is some muppet where the nose is a separate object stuck on would keep as separate objects and parent nose to head or via armature bones. $\endgroup$ – batFINGER Sep 22 '20 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ I mean not really, but since I am exporting the model to Unity I figured it would be "better" to have the character as one object (for performance) $\endgroup$ – hidingso Sep 22 '20 at 17:30
1
$\begingroup$

Joining this way, especially facial work, probably won't serve you well in the long run. The biggest issue you face, which you have already picked up on, is that it will disturb your topology. Longer term, the layout of faces and vertices doing it this way won't serve facial animation if you ever want to do anything. Think about smiling, for example. You would have to fight the direction of those edges to make it turn up. And in some areas where you need more fine detail, like around the eyes, you won't have it.

For example, look at the meshes here....

https://cgcookie.com/course/mesh-modeling-bootcamp

You can see how the mesh serves the animation (see the face loop video). Now in your case, it doesn't look like you have to do anything that complicated, but I would recommend following a tutorial like that one. One, you will probably learn a lot of great new stuff and it will get you ready for what you may want in the future for this project.

Good luck!

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reply! Yeah I figured facial animations with such topology would be a big problem. Will definitely check out those tutorials. Do you recon I would still run into problems if I didn't have any facial animations? The only animations I plan to have are for limbs $\endgroup$ – hidingso Sep 22 '20 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ Probably not. I would still recommend the polygonal modelling if only because recreating your shape would be super simple and solve a lot of your problems. Are you familiar with subdivision surfaces? You can just make a simple sphere, extrude a few faces in the front a couple of times and smooth it. Then before applying it, you can work against the original vertices while seeing the result. $\endgroup$ – Al Baker Sep 22 '20 at 13:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.