Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Iluxa147

Artefacts in triangle mesh

This topic is 844 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Helloo everybody.

 

I make a blade. Put material with reflection to check myself and have some artefacts [attachment=32310:art_max.jpg]

 

Selected polygons have one smoothgroop. [attachment=32311:group.jpg]

 

I have triangle wire [attachment=32312:wire.jpg]

 

and other model with quads [attachment=32313:Untitled-1.jpg] [attachment=32314:Untitl2ed-1.jpg].

 

There are the same artefacts in triangle and qard mesh.

 

Pleas help. Where is my mistake?

Edited by Iluxa147

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

For one, this is why we have normal maps. You can bake nice normals at a super high poly resolution. Your real issue is just not enough edge loops.

 

Anytime you have a vertex that is on an edge that is 90 degrees, or close to it, you need to create loops around it, otherwise it is interpolation lighting over such high angles. Also, this is why you usually apply sub surface division and then back normals onto low poly meshes. For this same type of reason. More polys = better surface representation and lighting.

sa58xtbt44se8j4zg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea! Putting edge loops give me correct result.

 

Normals. I bake normal map with xNormal (2048x2048) [attachment=32316:123_normals.bmp]. UV is bad, there are a lot of bad detailes, but I interested in one red area. It looks good on normal map.

 

In marmoset with normals I see that... [attachment=32317:normal.jpg] why it is so bad?

 

H-poly reflections and wire are ok in my oppinion [attachment=32318:112131231231.jpg]

Edited by Iluxa147

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, I would suspect some other issue in topology. TRy putting stl check, the modifier, on your unsmoothed souce mesh, to see wheather it detects somthing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stl check said nothing. Mabye somebody can look at my model more closely and say personal opinion (just only in red-circle part that i draw in UV)?

I am a newcomer in game-dev CG, so mabye my mistake is simple but i can't see it?

If i undastand dpadam450 right, I have 2 ways: make edge loops (and then put normal map, so i have more geometry, normal can be not so good but detaisl will be good because of loops) or make final surface with normals witout adding edge loops (less geometry+more good normal map=ok). So, I try to use secound way am I right?

Edited by Iluxa147

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one, this is why we have normal maps. You can bake nice normals at a super high poly resolution. Your real issue is just not enough edge loops.

 

Anytime you have a vertex that is on an edge that is 90 degrees, or close to it, you need to create loops around it, otherwise it is interpolation lighting over such high angles. Also, this is why you usually apply sub surface division and then back normals onto low poly meshes. For this same type of reason. More polys = better surface representation and lighting.

sa58xtbt44se8j4zg.jpg

 

Isn't the whole point of smoothing groups so you avoid having to manually create an edge loop though? Note I've only used blender, and 'make sharp' on an edge does (I think) the same thing, it internally forces a duplicate of vertices on edges so they can have different normals and not share the same normal.

 

To figure out what is happening, you could delete all the polys outside the smoothing group you have marked in red, and see if the 'artefacts' persist. At least you will know then whether it has been caused by the shared normals, or some issue in the red group mesh.

 

[just checked in blender and you also need the edge split modifier in addition to 'make sharp', sorry for any confusion :) ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

attach the file archived in .zip, I will then have a look at it (.zip is natural to windows, you address max users :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a better look, I spot that on the very peak you have a triangle-two of them, that do not have edge throught them connecting verticies that neigbour with them. Do you spot it? The upper issue is not clear to me yet.

Edited by JohnnyCode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add up how you could correct it without manipulating the exact trace, since, you will need new vertex to connect through those triangles if so.

1-go to edge edit and use "remove" on all edges on both sides of the peek triangle pair, meaning you remove the edges that has the neighboring vertex that does not continue with an edge through the two peak triangles, like the entire ring.

(you should be correct now already)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawnjelly

Yea.. it's interesting about avoiding loops... Yes, there are smoothing groops, so why must i add more loops?...

I try to delete all the polys outside the smoothing group and have the same result.

 

JohnnyCode

It is zip now)

 

I afraid that don't undestand your 2 last messages correctly, could you draw on my screenshoots to show what do you mean? It can't be edge loop through all model because of triangle peak. Is that wrong?

 

And the other problem with normal map In marmoset. It is clear in my opinion, so artefacts are because of geometry? 

Edited by Iluxa147

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!