0
$\begingroup$

enter image description hereenter image description hereI have always been a fanatic about making sure everything is made of quads but I am doing some archvis where the camera moves around the room (but objects remain stationary) and started wondering if I'm killing myself going through the trouble of cutting quads on objects that intersect that aren't going to be changing shape. A good example would be a window casing where the vertical and horizontal parts come together. I want to join the trim into a single object so I can library it and don't see why I would really need to go through the trouble of building quads out of every face that touch. I ran a simple render (animating with EEVEE) and didn't see any issues with shadows or faces warping. enter image description here

Close up of full unit [vertical verts grouped for sizing ][2]

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There isn't really a reason to have the objects be a single mesh to my knowledge. You want a single mesh when you are making stuff for 3D printing for example, bc it reduces the possible issues and overall geometry. Or if you want to give the impression that the whole thing as been covered in thick paint and you need a smooth connection. But otherwise, for a normal render, if it already looks good like that you don't have to merge them. To begin with, in a real window, those would be separate parts $\endgroup$
    – Cornivius
    Commented Jun 23 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, in a real window they would be separate parts but even if parented, you can't mark them as a single asset to pull out of a library later for another project, I have to join the parts as a single object, then mark as asset. The vertical sides come down and touch the window stool, an apron would be below that touching the bottom of the stool. I would have to cut a good number of loop cuts and cuts to make every intersection be only quads yet, if I'm not doing any flexing of the parts when the camera moves, I'm wondering if cutting all of those quads is even going to matter. $\endgroup$
    – Path11 Media
    Commented Jun 23 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ Why should quads be necessary ? Especially if you don't use modifiers such as Bevel, Subdiv Surface, ... You can have tris, quads, or n-gons. About multiple objects as assets : blender.stackexchange.com/questions/245019/… $\endgroup$
    – Lutzi
    Commented Jun 23 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ That's exactly what I was wondering. On a character I have to contend with a lot of flexing of curved faces so I keep everything quads, all these archvis parts are in straight lines and don't need to bend or flex in an animation. $\endgroup$
    – Path11 Media
    Commented Jun 23 at 12:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you're fine with the shading as it is, then don't bother and move on. :) $\endgroup$
    – Markus von Broady
    Commented Jun 23 at 13:56

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0
$\begingroup$

No, it is not.

If you don't have a reason to do something you should not do it. If you are modelling objects that are separate objects in real world there is absolutely no need to join them or connect their topology. Actually it would be more realistic to keep them separate as there are often small gaps between them that might be still visible from further away. They might collect dust or dirt or simply have a shadow and be visible as lines. So this is not only a complete waste of time, but also has a negative effect on the realism of your models. It's not even unnecessary, you should actually not do it.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
14
  • $\begingroup$ There is a reason, see added pics. I'm rendering with EEVEE, the projects are for entertainment/education web series incorporating video and animation. They will show destruction/reconstruction of homes and don't need photo realism, I have video for that. Grouping as one unit lets me change size by editing X-ray, grouping vertical or horizontal verts for resizing, which avoids the distortion of scaling. When there 20-40 windows in a building that need to be created, five parts being moved and resized is time consuming. They don't change size during animation, wondering if it will blow up. $\endgroup$
    – Path11 Media
    Commented Jun 24 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ One other thing, just in case I need it, I took the top three casing parts joined, the window stool, and the apron and made them vertex groups then grouped the entire thing as a single object. I did that in case I wanted to change the molding type for any of those by selecting the vertex group and deleting, then adding the new molding and grouping again. Speed is the critical part, if this takes off like I am having indications of, I need to roll out animations and/or getting other archvis artists to do sections. Providing assets like a window moulding grouped to them helps their process $\endgroup$
    – Path11 Media
    Commented Jun 24 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ You don't need 5 objects per window. They can be parented or you can join multiple meshes to one object. $\endgroup$
    – Martynas Žiemys
    Commented Jun 24 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how model's topology or number of mesh islands can affect animation functionality, unless you want to do soft deformations... $\endgroup$
    – Martynas Žiemys
    Commented Jun 24 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ To the second comment - hit L while hovering over some topology to quickly select linked. $\endgroup$
    – Martynas Žiemys
    Commented Jun 24 at 17:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .