Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Re: Why is "light math" important for free-form surface quality?


@Yamada wrote:

I don't see why many poles automatically implies bad surface shape.

in addition to the pole handling issues already mentioned, you may want to check standards (SASIG, MIL) which also warn against excessive degree and number of patches.

Re: Why is "light math" important for free-form surface quality?

Gears Phenom Gears Phenom
Gears Phenom

I understand your points - which they are all valid and so are your questions. I'm not taking any of your inquiries as challenges. All discussion about this specific type of modeling is good, IMO.

Sure, you could move poles with any surface, regardless of command - the key would be controlling those surfaces such that the number of poles were minimal so the pole manipulation would be possible or go back and edit the surface using tools such as Rebuild (either the built-in option or the standalone command). Blended surfaces could be manipulated also but I would guess this would come after pole reduction.

I'm not sure I would use the words good and bad here - preferred is usually the type of wording. Like has been said in other recent threads, this type of modeling often results in the designer or stylist having to deviate from preferred practice and very often that is a major challenge in learning when and where to do so.

I do not disagree with what you're saying about specific commands often result in "heavy" surfaces - but those commands might be avoided if the output wasn't ideal/preferred. That's probably why the Shape Studio (or whatever it's now called) commands came about. If you notice, they all have their own versions of those types of surfaces.
NX MP11 Rev. A
GM TcE v11.2.3.1
GM GPDL v11-A.3.6