Part of linked mesh appears invisible

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

In this case, when you're trying to make a smooth curvy edge on a low poly plane... I really do not. That's why I asked.

I didn't mean triangulate your entire mesh when working on the model, that's bad bad bad:)

[Rahkis Andel]

What if down the line she wants to add a loop cut straight through that trim edge? It's all triangulated so she can't. She would have to extrude a new row of faces. Will it matter in this unique case? Maybe not.

That's why it's the rule of thumb and not just the rule. Quads are undeniably easier to work with. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to so much as look at a triangle, or else.

Besides, we're technologically beyond the point where we will make significant gains from losing a few edges here and there by making heavy use of tris. That kind of really low poly modeling is rather unnecessary here, and I see no particular benefit to it. Clearly, you do and that's great. Difference of opinion.

However, it isn't really accurate to say that a tri is more reliable than a quad. We have a triangulate modifier; you can always know what your mesh will look like when triangulated -- there is no guess work here. If you have one triangle in an all quad mesh, when it is all triangulated, that one triangle is going to stand out a little bit.

The two things that I can think of off the top of my head that can make tris disadvantageous (asides from the workability factor) are:

  Smooth shading, lighting and shadows will be subtly less consistent across the affected faces.

  Normal maps will have a higher quality when evenly triangulated meshes are used.

How much either of those things matter depends mostly on how big of a perfectionist the artist is (disclaimer: I am one). That said, if there are disadvantages to a method and no real advantages to it, does it really matter how minor the disadvantages are?

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Rahkis Andel wrote:

What if down the line she wants to add a loop cut straight through that trim edge? It's all triangulated so she can't. She would have to extrude a new row of faces. Will it matter in this unique case? Maybe not.

---

With the row above the edge you already have the "adding a loop" issue, both in your example and in the model made by OP. You have 45 degree rotated quads, which is a very common way to go from low to high poly, there is no nice ring or straight loop in that area.

---

Besides, we're technologically beyond the point where we will make significant gains from losing a few edges here and there by making heavy use of tris. That kind of really low poly modeling is rather unnecessary here, and I see no particular benefit to it. Clearly, you do and that's great. Difference of opinion.

---

It's not a exactly a couple of edges, it affects a couple of loops from the bottom.

 

 

---

However, it isn't really accurate to say that a tri is more reliable than a quad. We have a triangulate modifier; you can always know what your mesh will look like when triangulated -- there is no guess work here. If you have one triangle in an all quad mesh, when it is all triangulated, that one triangle is going to stand out

a little bit

.

---

A tri is a tri, a quad can be split into tris two ways, so the result of a tri is always more predictable. This has got nothing to do with the issue at hand though, since the issue was using tris to make the edge or quads, not whether splitting quads into tris was a good idea. One triangle will stand out, a uniform geometry like in the OP's model doesn't have a single tri between quads though.

---

The two things that I can think of off the top of my head that can make tris disadvantageous (asides from the workability factor) are:

  Smooth shading, lighting and shadows will be subtly less consistent across the affected faces.

  Normal maps will have a higher quality when evenly triangulated meshes are used.

How much either of those things matter depends mostly on how big of a perfectionist the artist is (disclaimer: I am one). That said, if there are disadvantages to a method and no real advantages to it,

does it really matter how minor the disadvantages are

?

---

I really don't see why and how in all three cases. Triangles can mess up edgeflow. That's why all the things you describe can occur. But your edgeflow isn't any more fluid than the one in the other model. One edge is vertical, the ones under it are diagonal, in both the quad based and triangle based model. This can affect lighting, in both cases. The only way to prevent that is by making straight edgeloops, which inevitably results in a high poly model.

[Sienia Trevellion]

Either way, it's a whole heck of a lot better than what I was doing previously! 

 

Here's where I'm at now...

 

Collar & Inset fabric area (Now one piece): 844 Faces

Pearls (I cut off the back of them that weren't visible anyway): 320 Faces

Roses: 3,398 Faces - Still trying to get them lower but not sure if I have the know-how to do it effectively

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rahkis Andel]

I already conceded that she probably didn't need to worry about the tris in this case. On several occasions. I think you're splitting hairs here, and I'm not sure why.

Anyway, back to the real topic...

@Sienia:

I think the flowers look okay so long as there is not a subsurf applied to them. I could give you a demo of how to reduce them further, but I'm not sure the improvement would be worth the trouble for you.

Edit:

I should mention that I'm starting to notice that you are working with a subsurf applied to the editing cage.

I wouldn't reccomend working this way because it's giving you an inaccurate vision of what your mesh will look like in game. In game, your mesh will look like a subsurf level of 0. (no subsurf)

Come to think of it, if that is all the detail you had before and you had a subsurf modifier applied on top of -that-, it's pretty clear what was causing your mesh to be so overwhelmingly dense. You may have to step back and rework your topology with the non-subdivided mesh in mind to make sure your curves are still curvy.

[Sienia Trevellion]

When I first made the petals, I had a subsurf and solidify modifiers on them. I applied both and then I went in and deleted loops to pair it down to what you see now. I'll keep this in mind and it really is apparent to me now that how I was going about it with the susurfs wasn't the best. I learned soooo much from all of this. Thank you again!

[Rahkis Andel]

No problem.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Rahkis Andel wrote:

I already conceded that she probably didn't need to worry about the tris in this case. On several occasions. I think you're splitting hairs here, and I'm not sure why.

---

I'm not trying to split hairs, it's not about who is right or wrong. Keeping your mesh in quads is usually the way to go, for many reasons of which you described most, so that is good advice.

My only point was it is a misconception that tris are to be avoided at all times, they can be real geometry savers, especially at the end of the modeling process.

[Rahkis Andel]

And I agree with you.

[Sienia Trevellion]

Rahkis, thank you for helping me make this properly! You're the best!