-= Gametoast.com =-

Hey everyone. I made this topic to clear something up, and make sure I'm not confused about anything. I made this (very) simple diagram to show a friend what everyone meant when they said "you have unnecessary vertices." I don't like speaking for other people without making sure I understood them in the first place, so I wanted to ask if my diagram is more or less correct. Vertices that aren't adding to the shape of a model can be removed to improve model efficiency. In this diagram I used a pentagon shaped model as my example, viewed from above. The top and bottom of this fictional model is completely flat, so no vertices are needed in the center. My friend didn't want a face with 5 or more sides, which is understandable and fine. This was my solution.


Am I correct, or confused in this matter? Thanks in advance.

Youre correct. Id just draw one line though so I have 1 tri and 1 quad(quads are awesome).

Yes one horizontal line between the "middle" points is the only edge you really need to add.

What's the difference, besides the level of control you have over the triangulation, between leaving a quad and having it triangulated on export or triangulating it yourself? Should I have quads on my models?

there is no big difference.
i always keep the model in quads because then you can see the structure/polyflow.
on places where xsi interprets the polygons the "wrong" way, resulting in weird looking textureprojection or shading (thats often on one side of symmetrical models) i add a few triangles on affected polys.
i dont like to have edges that have no purpose all over the place, especially because usually after exporting and testing i go back, modify a bit and reexport models.

Fiodis wrote:What's the difference, besides the level of control you have over the triangulation, between leaving a quad and having it triangulated on export or triangulating it yourself? Should I have quads on my models?

It's personal preference I guess. However, since my first weapon model I ever made I've been converting quads to triangles before export because the Munge can't handle small vertices. So models like this, end up with missing polygons ingame.
Since then I learned to be a bit more poly efficient, so it may not even be needed. Besides, I cold convert the tris to quads any time I wanted with a couple clicks, so I just prefer to do it myself. I don't trust the munge, the munge threatens to stab me.

Most people just have vertex's that have no business being there resulting in a sloppy model and in a game where performance depends on having low polygon models every bit counts. If the game were meant for more then the developers wouldn't have been so conservative.

minilogoguy18 wrote:Most people just have vertex's that have no business being there resulting in a sloppy model and in a game where performance depends on having low polygon models every bit counts. If the game were meant for more then the developers wouldn't have been so conservative.

This is very true...if there more than a few slightly higher-poly custom models being made.

THEWULFMAN wrote:

Fiodis wrote:What's the difference, besides the level of control you have over the triangulation, between leaving a quad and having it triangulated on export or triangulating it yourself? Should I have quads on my models?

It's personal preference I guess. However, since my first weapon model I ever made I've been converting quads to triangles before export because the Munge can't handle small vertices. So models like this, end up with missing polygons ingame.

Hidden/Spoiler:

Since then I learned to be a bit more poly efficient, so it may not even be needed. Besides, I cold convert the tris to quads any time I wanted with a couple clicks, so I just prefer to do it myself. I don't trust the munge, the munge threatens to stab me.

That is a really cool weapon I can't believe you actually made that very cool.

RAS Prosecutor has tons and tons of polygons in the environment, player models, and weapon models. Add on top of that Specular/Bumpmaps for basically every object on screen, and throw in dynamic lighting in the hallways that all cast specular. Then, turn on the shadows. Zero Engine handles it all just fine, and I'm still pulling 45 fps with no drops and occasional raises up to 50. The fact that somebody's cylinder caps have one or two more vertices doesn't make much of a difference.

Sure, if you are going for uber fast performance, than you could optimize the absolute crap out of every model you make. But some people just don't have the time. Complaining about optimization won't help any. Most of us are aware of the amount of polygons that should be on models for this game as we have been working for with it for years. IMO, these are petty arguments that have been taking up way too many posts in the 3D modelling showcase thread and here.

The Nasal Abyss wrote:RAS Prosecutor has tons and tons of polygons in the environment, player models, and weapon models. Add on top of that Specular/Bumpmaps for basically every object on screen, and throw in dynamic lighting in the hallways that all cast specular. Then, turn on the shadows. Zero Engine handles it all just fine, and I'm still pulling 45 fps with no drops and occasional raises up to 50. The fact that somebody's cylinder caps have one or two more vertices doesn't make much of a difference.

Sure, if you are going for uber fast performance, than you could optimize the absolute crap out of every model you make. But some people just don't have the time. Complaining about optimization won't help any. Most of us are aware of the amount of polygons that should be on models for this game as we have been working for with it for years. IMO, these are petty arguments that have been taking up way too many posts in the 3D modelling showcase thread and here.

THANK you!

The Nasal Abyss wrote:RAS Prosecutor has tons and tons of polygons in the environment, player models, and weapon models. Add on top of that Specular/Bumpmaps for basically every object on screen, and throw in dynamic lighting in the hallways that all cast specular. Then, turn on the shadows. Zero Engine handles it all just fine, and I'm still pulling 45 fps with no drops and occasional raises up to 50. The fact that somebody's cylinder caps have one or two more vertices doesn't make much of a difference.

Sure, if you are going for uber fast performance, than you could optimize the absolute crap out of every model you make. But some people just don't have the time. Complaining about optimization won't help any. Most of us are aware of the amount of polygons that should be on models for this game as we have been working for with it for years. IMO, these are petty arguments that have been taking up way too many posts in the 3D modelling showcase thread and here.

That summed it up perfectly.

The Nasal Abyss wrote:RAS Prosecutor has tons and tons of polygons in the environment, player models, and weapon models. Add on top of that Specular/Bumpmaps for basically every object on screen, and throw in dynamic lighting in the hallways that all cast specular. Then, turn on the shadows. Zero Engine handles it all just fine, and I'm still pulling 45 fps with no drops and occasional raises up to 50. The fact that somebody's cylinder caps have one or two more vertices doesn't make much of a difference.

i tried to be as efficient as possible on most props because battlefront cant handly that many polygons at once on a screen and models are switching to lowres and back within a few seconds. i was actually able to reduce the flickering through reducing the polygons of cylinders on one repeatedly used panel so that the polycount was halved. then i had to add a lot of supportedges to floors for smooth lighting and the small "performance" gain was gone..
this is a very unique example because prosecutor is rather small and you always see lots of panels and props on the screen. most likely you wont have issues with high polycounts on larger outdoor maps and battlefront also handles polygons on weapons and units better.

i must say that i cant totally enjoy weapons or similiar with a lot of "unnecessary" edges for rounding or detail and im tempted to say that some could be cut. but when i look at my old models many of them had a large amount of unnecessary polys. i think in the process of getting more and more experienced with modeling sooner or later you get to a stage where you want to be as efficient as possible and would like other people to be too. you cant force that but somewhen it will come naturally.

The RAS Prosecutor models are optimized as hell!

I agree that wanting to have efficient models comes with experience. Usually when you begin to model you just want to have a decent looking model and dont care about efficiency or poly flow.
The main problem I see is people taking a wrong approach to optimized and effective models. They view it as an additional, boring and time consuming procedure you have to undergo(for no visible reason maybe). Maybe this comes with experience but if you know what youre model is going to be used in(animation, games, just a still)you(I) can do the optimization while Im modelling(ie just taking 6 instead of 10 sides of a cylinder). Many people seem to be modelling their low poly models in the wrong "way", they begin with many polygons and then have to cut down. Beginning with just a few polies and adding if needed is the most effective way because then you dont have to cut down on anything afterwards. If the model is optimized and "clean" weighting becomes easier, animating becomes easier and UVing becomes easier which makes texturing (and baking) easier(and more fun). It gives you more control over your geometry, too.

Of course you usually have to do some additional tweaking to get the best and most efficient model, but if you didnt mess your UVs up completely it wont take much time.

Optimization and efficiency of course shouldnt be your top priority, but of what use is an awesome HD model if half of the polies get deleted by the engine?

I bet this guy spent about 5 hours getting such a clean bake with so few polies but that would be the way to go for game models. Zero cant render normal maps as good, but even without normal map such a weapon can very well be under 1,5k polies and still look good(and smooth/round). An re: difference between quads/tris:
Quads look cleaner, show the polyflow exactly(its still visible with all tris but not as clear) and why should I triangulate the model manually if the export/two mouseclicks will do it just as well(and faster)? This is hardcore efficiency.

Re: Quads / Tris

I disagree that quads always look cleaner. Frequently I have to manually triangulate some parts so they don't look like garbage.

Re: Vertspam

I try to predict the number of verts I need for a polymesh, and then weld or add as needed. Verts not adding to shapes get welded unless it is useful to keep them for UVing.

kinetosimpetus wrote:Re: Quads / Tris

I disagree that quads always look cleaner. Frequently I have to manually triangulate some parts so they don't look like garbage.

yes, that happen especially with polys with stretched UVs. what ande and i mean though is that you cant properly judge the polyflow and cleanness of a model when you look at its wires.

I work 11hrs a day as a mechanic for Honda then all day on my days off I skateboard, I still find time to optimize everything, also been adding all the things I never used to, lowrez, shadowvolumes and proper collisions.

I've been doing this as a hobby for 10 or so years and I'll tell you straight up, high polygon modeling is so retardedly easy that I find a well made low poly model to be far more impressive than something that has every little detail modeled on.

A lot of people here could learn a ton by hanging out on polycount.com.

minilogoguy18 wrote:I still find time to optimize everything, also been adding all the things I never used to, lowrez, shadowvolumes and proper collisions.

minilogoguy18 wrote:I've been doing this as a hobby for 10 or so years

Not all of us have even close to that many years of experience in 3d modeling, yet alone modding at all. Of course you're able to do this stuff quickly. The point is [echos The Nasal Abyss's previous post].

minilogoguy18 wrote:...10 or so years...

I've been modeling for about 14 months. Marth, about 6 months. If we're still making crappy models in 9 years, I give you full permission to call us whatever you want (in English or Huttese).