The way I'd do it is probably not the most efficient but I'd just dissolve the extra vertices or edges, and delete/refill as needed until there were no ngons left. When modeling I usually make a nice model and do this kind of "clean up" toward the end. As an aspiring game dev I'm also wayyy more conscientious about vertex count than maybe a digital artist/people who don't need real-time rendering, so I do that to avoid adding unnecessary vertices
To all those who are offended by this lol; There is no 1 way to do things in literally any field of CG, everything depends on your project, your timing, your client and the expected outcome, and timing is one of most important aspects of our work. P.S he never said "the best way" , to me this is the fastest way and its absolutely fine for some specific purposes.
I'm seeing a lot more modellers doing this. This is silly. Yes, it's a temporary fix, but it's not a global cut-and-dry fix for shading. There are many ways of fixing shading that is much geometrically cleaner than this. You just made a few ngons into way more there for, yes, constraining the ngons to a smaller area there to make it less noticeable, but you just sacrificed tons of geometrical leeway. Do not do this!
As with everything, context matters here. If it's a concept art that won't get deformed, it's mostly fine. If it will be used for some other purpose e.g. as a game asset, then yes, such a fix won't be sufficient.
@@cladoxylopsida568 You should look up some tutorials on the best game asset creation practices. But generally, it's better to keep the topology neat, and to make it make more sense than what is shown in this video aka make sure it at least triangulates and unwraps nicely.
@@juniix7105 I wouldnt even do this to a concept piece. Its sacrolage and completely unnessisery. If your that bothered about the normals then you can just use the primitives normals before its cut into using the data transfer modifier. Its a super simple technique and yet nobody talks about it. Also infinitely subdividing a mesh will only lead to issues down the road. Not to mention the viewport performance issues you will encounter. You will have z-fighting to contend with and double verts. Yes a weld modifier can fix this but you still have to be careful since you can loose detail if your not careful. Either that or use a loop around the edge and do this properly instead of sloppely like this.
@@juniix7105 You also need to account for the silluete of an object to keep it looking correct in all angles it will be seen. You can decimate an object as much as you like but the silluette is what really matters in the end to make a good game model. Tri count is also important but not as important now days since rasterised graphics has come such a long way. For details in modern engines, I would tend to try and go with floating geometry, otherwise known as geometrical decals. They can be real handy for adding detail to cheap objects. It takes some setting up but yeah it works. Also people tend to keep game models quad based. Really you shouldn't be afraid to use tris. Just try to mitigate geometric stars where possible.
Here’s the thing: I don’t disagree with you. But I also don’t agree with you. Saying this as a blanket statement is about as ignorant as saying “You should use English as your language!” Context matters. If I’m in Germamy, German would be adequate. Japan? Japanese would be adequate. US? English You are assuming ONE specific set of circumstances (i.e. where good geo is needed) and applying it as a blanket statement. You are spreading bad information with the context of your comment. If I’m going for a high-end concept render, who cares about the topology? If I’m passing the asset to a VFX studio, they’d tell me to clean the geo. I’d suggest rephrasing your comment because it simply isn’t accurate at all.
Is it for game use or is it purposed to be just a Picture/Video? At the moment I'm working on a portfolio for an open Crytek Environment job. And I had to use a lot of booleans in the last few days. I cleaned everything up (pick one, M to the other point that is fix). And I hope to grab as much tips from shorts as possible. (btw, your long vids helped me big times so far).
the first 3d art class i took the teacher told us 1 mf that bring me something with boolean and is outtta my class. Never used a single boolean again after that.
@@thiagordooo I dont know i guess is because he wanted to force us to think for ourselves how to achieve certain results. And back in the days retopo button wasnt a thing so bad topology was taboo as fuck.
I would rather do simple cleanup rather than using this method. Becoz I will add some nice bevel afterwards. And u cannot bevel modifier this kind of model.
So adding 1000 vertices to our model to fix some shading mistake? Got it
The way I'd do it is probably not the most efficient but I'd just dissolve the extra vertices or edges, and delete/refill as needed until there were no ngons left. When modeling I usually make a nice model and do this kind of "clean up" toward the end. As an aspiring game dev I'm also wayyy more conscientious about vertex count than maybe a digital artist/people who don't need real-time rendering, so I do that to avoid adding unnecessary vertices
same
To all those who are offended by this lol;
There is no 1 way to do things in literally any field of CG, everything depends on your project, your timing, your client and the expected outcome, and timing is one of most important aspects of our work.
P.S he never said "the best way" , to me this is the fastest way and its absolutely fine for some specific purposes.
I'm seeing a lot more modellers doing this. This is silly. Yes, it's a temporary fix, but it's not a global cut-and-dry fix for shading. There are many ways of fixing shading that is much geometrically cleaner than this. You just made a few ngons into way more there for, yes, constraining the ngons to a smaller area there to make it less noticeable, but you just sacrificed tons of geometrical leeway. Do not do this!
As with everything, context matters here. If it's a concept art that won't get deformed, it's mostly fine. If it will be used for some other purpose e.g. as a game asset, then yes, such a fix won't be sufficient.
@@cladoxylopsida568 You should look up some tutorials on the best game asset creation practices. But generally, it's better to keep the topology neat, and to make it make more sense than what is shown in this video aka make sure it at least triangulates and unwraps nicely.
@@juniix7105 I wouldnt even do this to a concept piece. Its sacrolage and completely unnessisery. If your that bothered about the normals then you can just use the primitives normals before its cut into using the data transfer modifier. Its a super simple technique and yet nobody talks about it. Also infinitely subdividing a mesh will only lead to issues down the road. Not to mention the viewport performance issues you will encounter. You will have z-fighting to contend with and double verts. Yes a weld modifier can fix this but you still have to be careful since you can loose detail if your not careful. Either that or use a loop around the edge and do this properly instead of sloppely like this.
@@juniix7105 You also need to account for the silluete of an object to keep it looking correct in all angles it will be seen. You can decimate an object as much as you like but the silluette is what really matters in the end to make a good game model. Tri count is also important but not as important now days since rasterised graphics has come such a long way. For details in modern engines, I would tend to try and go with floating geometry, otherwise known as geometrical decals. They can be real handy for adding detail to cheap objects. It takes some setting up but yeah it works. Also people tend to keep game models quad based. Really you shouldn't be afraid to use tris. Just try to mitigate geometric stars where possible.
Here’s the thing: I don’t disagree with you. But I also don’t agree with you. Saying this as a blanket statement is about as ignorant as saying “You should use English as your language!”
Context matters.
If I’m in Germamy, German would be adequate.
Japan? Japanese would be adequate.
US? English
You are assuming ONE specific set of circumstances (i.e. where good geo is needed) and applying it as a blanket statement.
You are spreading bad information with the context of your comment.
If I’m going for a high-end concept render, who cares about the topology?
If I’m passing the asset to a VFX studio, they’d tell me to clean the geo.
I’d suggest rephrasing your comment because it simply isn’t accurate at all.
just add an entire level worth of vertices to a cylinder ... easy peasy lemon ... wait ... where did blender go ... * crashes *
I see you are an Ngon enjoyer
Is it for game use or is it purposed to be just a Picture/Video?
At the moment I'm working on a portfolio for an open Crytek Environment job. And I had to use a lot of booleans in the last few days. I cleaned everything up (pick one, M to the other point that is fix). And I hope to grab as much tips from shorts as possible. (btw, your long vids helped me big times so far).
It would be a bad practice to leave lots of n-gons in a game asset
Is there no way to do it without causing ngons?
You always have to clean up ngons if your going to be doing booleans.
@@bobmcboblin ok thanks
Use a CAD software and u don't have to deal with this shit lmao
Aligning your vertices with the boolean mesh vertices and manually retopologizing everything
yeah
the first 3d art class i took the teacher told us 1 mf that bring me something with boolean and is outtta my class. Never used a single boolean again after that.
whats the issue with booleans?
@@thiagordooo I dont know i guess is because he wanted to force us to think for ourselves how to achieve certain results. And back in the days retopo button wasnt a thing so bad topology was taboo as fuck.
Dude... retopoligy!
you didnt fixed anything
blenderers give zero f's about topology lmao
Optimization left the chat
obviously this isn't for game-ready objects
The comments are a reason for Blender to make modelling non-destructive by default.
I would rather do simple cleanup rather than using this method. Becoz I will add some nice bevel afterwards. And u cannot bevel modifier this kind of model.
After youre finished cleaning it up could you then make seams around the border and then unsubdivide the mesh to lower the poly count back down?
Thanks
What if to use mechmachine Boolean clean up? Is it also alright?
What is an ngons?
A polygon with more than 4 vertices
AUTO SMOOTH
You were the only one that went straight to the point
thanks