Jump to content

Subdivision vs Hard Surface

Recommended Posts

Dear all,



I have a question about modelling. I'm making a LCD display for the computer but I'm having a hard time joining the smooth curves from the back of the model with the hard edges of the front.

I need the corners of de LCD panel itself to be super tight.

Therefor I made some control cuts but I wonder if that's even ok-ish to do in this way?

Simpel question, is this modelled properly? Or how would you approach it.

Another question is if I need this many poly's? At first I started with an uneven divided mesh that I cut up in places where I needed geometry. But it acted weird under the SDS. So I read it's important to make your poly's somewhat the same size. Is this correct?


Many thanks again.

I appreciat your input.

Files in attachment.






Edited by Cerbera
Retitled for accuracy / later search use
Link to post

Not everything has to be made using subdivision. This for example would be a good thing to make using hard surface techniques instead, especially if the client demanded polygon efficiency, because it is mainly flat surfaces.


However it does also work as an SDS model, and in this case you don't need to worry about the size discrepancy because a) control edges are something of an exception to the 'keep polygons evenly sized' rules, and b) you're not working with a curved form.


So yes, that model is generally fine so far...


However, you should have been able to model this in 2 (or even 3) separate parts (the indented back panel doesn't need to be the same mesh as the front, and the screen doesn't have to be the same mesh as the frame), which would have enabled you to use far less polygons, and model it incredibly simply. In fact that main screen section could have been just 1 poly !! I'll make it HS for you show you the difference...



Link to post

Here we go... new model made of 3 parts, so we only put the detail where we need it. The screen doesn't need any detail, so is 1 polygon ! The Frame only needs about 16 polys, and only back requires more because of the curves in the indents there. Bevel deformers are applied in Chamfer Mode to frame and back sections, to give us our nice edge highlights, but the screen doesn't even need one of those ! 






Here's a corner detail showing the bevels...




So, this wins as a viable model over your SDS version because:


a) it was much less effort (so took less time). No control loops needed and no worrying about triangles, which now don't matter.

b) the sharper corners are now easy to get, and are even parametric now so the client can come back to you and say 'make the edges sharper or softer', and you can do so in seconds without touching the topology at all !

c) it uses around 50 times less polygons than the SDS equivalent, so is a far speedier, more efficient mesh that will even render considerably faster !

d) The parts are now separate, so we don't need to continue edge flows between them and materials are now easier to assign.


Here's the scene file, so you can see in more detail...


Display HS CBR.c4d



Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...