Cerbera

Here's a practical example that demonstrates the sort of topology you could have used on one of those floral plates. This version I made using regular poly modelling, symmetry, and being very minimal on the polygons, but it is still all quads (or will be when symmetries are combined and centerline edges dissolved). It took 5 minutes, which is arguably faster than making the splines in the first place ! I appreciate that it might take someone with less experience more time to do it this way, but if you train yourself from the ground-up to model things in quads then you become as fast at doing that as lesser skilled people are at doing it the lazier spline-based ways. CBR

OP is selling the model, which means it cannot have any ngons, because a) different apps resolve ngons differently, so you cannot guarantee consistency across platforms and b) most 3D model sites simply won't allow it. I would add c) it's just not professional modelling to leave ngons in a commercial model, but that is just my opinion. But, and especially with a model as oft-produced and sold as this one, there will always be someone else who has done it properly, and they will be able to charge more cash for their superior models, and other modellers will respect their work, and they will build reputation. It's also worth pointing out that while ngons might not crash the program any more, they do still prevent the polygon tools working predictably, which is surely yet another reason to avoid them ? But I agree that what OP has done here for a quads solution is not the answer either. This has, as you pointed out, added a ton of geometry, and it's still horrible (and now unnecessarily dense and irregular), despite being quads. This is good advice - most of the horribleness of the current topology has happened because OP tried to fix spline-based objects (compounded by non-optimal spline interpolation settings) rather than model them from polygons in the first place, which (even with some triangles) would have produced the best / most commercially appropriate results whether using subdivision surfaces, or with bevels, or just as they are. Quads-only would have given additional flexibility in developing the model into a high poly version if that was ever needed later either by OP or by people who had bought the model, and would look neater, more professional and more attractive to anyone browsing wireframes. Admittedly, some people really don't care about this when buying models, but let's put it this way; nobody is going to not buy your models because they were modelled nicely, but some people might not buy your models if they look like cr@p in the wireframe. So that's my arguments for all quads and decent edge flow, rather than it being for only modelling purist reasons. CBR

Ah that's nice. Wondered when something new was going to rock up in Labs... CBR

Not much to criticize there, my friend :) Good modelling, loops where they should be, the form nicely described, good hair, good everything really ! :) CBR

Are you fairly confident you've got this one sorted, or would you appreciate some expert advice ? For example, are you just going to let everything intersect like that ?! CBR

Could we see some decent closeups and wireframes ? Otherwise it's very hard to know if you are doing well or not, or need any pertinent advice ! :) CBR

Lols. I knew about the Xmas tree material preview thing, but I think this is new(er) ! :)

I was hoping the reset machine would pull out a laser at some point and blow away the tank :)

Don't turn on OpenGL stats - they are not telling you anything helpful. I just use the other HUD elements for total and selected points, edges, polys and ngons, which should do pretty much what you're asking. There is no functionality to identify triangles because they are not necessarily wrong in all contexts, but you can find them, and ngons using the Structure Manager - have a look at the various modes there, which are designed to highlight different types of polygons. We also have the mesh checker in modelling tools, which tests for and highlights a variety of additional geometry errors, and between those 2 things I don't find the need for any other tools when I'm on the hunt for rogue topology. That said I believe there are a couple of plugins that will display more comprehensive information in the HUD, but I've never needed them. CBR

PM sent... CBR

I was referring to this section of the roof where you have a bevelled corner, and then additional loops either side of them. But looking again, I see that those extra loops are probably there to support the lower frames, so in this instance that's OK presuming that you have a valid reason to make the supports and the roof a single object. I bet they're not a single object in real life ! If there is no reason for that, then it could be considered better technique to build the roof as a separate object, in which case you can use only the geometry and loops that it alone requires. Does that make sense ? CBR

Nice to have that confirmed - thanks for the correction :) CBR

Ah. There's the answer :) Maya has done its own thing with point order, and cinema doesn't know what to do with it. Obj is also a famously spurious format for preserving texture stuff. So going with my plan above is your best shot I reckon... just bind the one with the decent UV's to the rig. CBR

Visualize has a lot of things that are useful to architectural visualisation, though most of these come down to library objects and materials, the latter of which are mostly irrelevant to you if you are using Vray. I do know of several people who use prime + an external renderer to great effect. You can compare which features are in which versions in a lot of detail here. Lastly, I should say that MoGraph (broadcast / Studio versions only) is potentially very helpful in making anything that repeats, so fencing, specialist brickwork, flooring, roofing etc is all much faster if you have that. Also, Studio has the almighty hair system, compatible with Vray, that makes for excellent architectural grass. My apologies if that has complicated things further rather than made anything clearer ! :) CBR

Each vertex you create in Cinema has a specific number, and all your vertexes together have a specific point order, viewable in the structure menu (tab to the right of object manager). Each vertex (point) has a corresponding UV vertex (point), and this is why things go wrong if you UV a model, and then add new geometry to it, which changes that point order, and the UV map doesn't make sense any more until you redo it. Likewise, each polygon (face) has a corresponding UV polygon. I note with interest that you said you copied that mesh via export. I wonder if that's where it went wrong. If you had copied it by ctrl-dragging in the file I suspect (and it is only a suspicion) you wouldn't be getting this problem. CBR

Update: I've found an answer, though it's not ideal as there is some weighting to fix... but if you delete body 1, move body 2 to X=0 so it is lined up over the rig, you can bind the rig to body 2 by dropping it into the slot in the Bind tab of the character object. Might be faster than doing your UV's again. CBR

Well, I can confirm that your models are identical, so is the point order, and also that copying the UV tag across doesn't work in your case. Having done that I can check the UV map and it seems to be correct, but obviously isn't doing that in the viewport, and if we select a single island of UV polys we can see that actually the UV's from that one island are all over the model, which clearly isn't right. What is even more odd is that removing your skin and rig doesn't appear to make any difference. So, sorry to say I don't have a solution for this that isn't doing either rigging or UVing again, but it's not really my area of expertise, so hopefully somebody else has a plan you can try... CBR

That's weird - if the models are truly identical, and have the same point count and order, then just moving the UV tag should do it. That works for me in R19, but I don't have 16 installed any more so can't test it there. CBR

Having paid for the Adobe Creative Suite years and years ago, before it went subscription only, I still resolutely use PS CS3. Incredibly old now, but still does everything I want it to. I have GIMP on the other machine, but I don't like the way it does it a lot of things, so it doesn't get used as much. When I next feel like an upgrade in that department, I will almost certainly get Affinity Photo - nothing else out there gives you that much for that delightfully silly price :)

For a first proper model this is not bad at all. But understandably, it's not perfect either. 1. Whilst I am suitably impressed that you have properly modelled your floral grating, because it is a perfectly flat surface this was one occasion where it would have been more efficient (at least time-wise) to do it with a spline in an extrude. Not that what you've got isn't also fine, and a nicer job, although you could make the symmetry editable, and delete the points on the centerlines for optimum efficiency. This would also eliminate your remaining triangles there :) 2. It is hard to be sure without seeing what you were trying to match (if anything), but I suspect there are some extraneous bevels going on in the roof, and I'm not sure that stepping down of topology there is needed / a good idea. The aforementioned unnecessary bevelling would make a much nicer transition to the upper parts if it wasn't there. I suspect you applied a bevel deformer at some point, and bevelled all edges instead of making a selection tag for just the edges where bevelling was needed ? In either case, you seem to have used control loops AND bevelling where you should only require one or the other, not both. 3. You say nearly all quads ;) If you go that extra mile and make it 100% quads you'll sleep better, be a better modeller, and might be in the running for one of our legendary IQP Gold Stars or Cafe Badges... Looking forward to your next one. CBR

Yep, good stuff, and I particularly like what you've done with the duvet and the bedding. Would be nice to see some rucks in those rugs though - have never seen one of those that is 100% flat :) CBR

Excellent plan :) I'd like to see some Max style modelling tools in C4D, including but not limited to: Face and edge constraints, meaning that points stay on faces as they are moved. We have the slide tool, but not for face constraints. Set Flow - Takes selected point / edge / poly and matches surrounding curvature. Make Planar - takes any selection and makes planar on X, Y or Z or custom / interactive plane. Open SubDiv that works with UV's. Push modifier - moves faces edges or points along their individual (not averaged) normals. Shell - adds inner and / or outer thickness, with optional control loops ProBoolean - boole toole that only creates quads. Regularizer - like an enhanced points-to-circle script, but also equalizes edge distance, and works on multiple selections at once and respects face constraints. End Loop - automatically terminates / ends edge loops. Is that enough to be going on with - I have more ;) Anyway, thanks for listening... CBR

Good stuff. Looking very clean so far... CBR

Love it. Not one polygon more than necessary :) CBR

That would also be the sound of me of defecting to Modo, Houdini or Blender ;) I will never take part in Autodesk's monthly rental scam scheme. CBR