Quads and Edgeloops are Overrated

Laura's character art classes: outgang.studio
Through this video I argue that it is completely fine to have triangles within a low-res mesh. Some people worry too much about having perfect edgeloop placement and a fully quaded surface when doing retopology work. I do believe that both quads and edgeloops are important when constructing a video game low-res, I just don't think they're as important as some make them to be.
Outgang is founded on the belief that education should be affordable, high-quality and given by industry professionals. Laura Gallagher has been teaching character art since 2012 at various venues and has launched Outgang in 2020 with the goal of helping out as many artists as possible aspire to a better life for themselves.
We exist solely due to the generous support of our community. Becoming a monthly or yearly member of Outgang is the best way to support us and help us achieve our mission of bringing high-quality, affordable education to as many people as possible. Alternatively, you can also support us on Patreon
Outgang is also comprised of:
Frédérik Généreux:
www.artstation.com/fredfaitde...
Piotr Dziubek:
www.artstation.com/aydhe
Reila Soley:
/ reilasoley
Join our Discord server:
/ discord
Follow us on social media:
/ outgang.studio
/ outgang3d

[@DeadWookiee]

I think it really gets drilled into people if they ever have to work in a larger production like an anim studio. There has to be a level of conformity between all the models so the decision is usually to have all quads as a rule to avoid any strangeness down the pipeline. I think this is ultimately a super inefficient way to work haha, but also the safest to make things easier for rigging and avoid any artifacting during render. But when I do personal work I should really remind myself its not the end of the world to have a triangle, especially if it would take 30 min to find a quad solution hahaha.

[@bryanharrison3889]

I don't think there's anything inefficient about working in quads, especially when it comes to fixes or re-works down the pipeline. A quad mesh has less issues when you have to rework it, and its easier and faster to fix problems, with a less likelyhood of breaking your uv maps. There's not much downside to quads.

[@SianaGearz]

Thing is also production rendering use subdivision surfaces, in particular Catmull-Clark spline patch is technically only defined for quads. It can be applied to triangles but then it's not well behaved, it looks way different, creates a different amount of surface offset, some waviness. You can survive triangles but they need to be where extra surface waviness is acceptable and expected. There exist Loop splines (after Charles Loop, not related to edge loops) which are only defined for triangles and not for quads, but they have never worked so well. Only recently (20 years ago) Stam-Loop splines were defined which gracefully unify quad and tri, but by then things were kinda set in stone. For realtime rendering with model resolution as authored, while quad workflow is more convenient and more robust, the model is downconverted to triangles on export anyway, so it's all the same if they sit right, and you better pay attention to angles and surface of resulting triangles being not too dissimilar instead.

[@Hiryustudio]

The Quads obsession is an inheritance form sub div modelling, that where if make tringle breaking edge loops you will have bad surface. But in low poly assets the big things behind the quad modelling is because rigging and unwrapping it became a lot more easier and controlable, but if you are in rush and you have to make something fast is not a big drama.

[@JM_3D]

Very interesting - I always stress about quads! Thanks for sharing this!

[@ankushsharma6890]

Yours is the best channel for 3D on you tube.... And i mean it❤❤

[@QuiteDan]

Once, I made a comment about how all 3d game rendering will triangulate polygons under the hood. But someone corrected me and said that apparently the Sega Saturn is capable of rendering true quads.

[@dantertart5118]

I just love the way you explain stuff, it just sticks to my brain. I don't know why o.o

[@Cazaq]

Terrific work. Much love!

[@sun_beams]

Laura, I might have missed it, but did you state that the weights of this were copied over from the properly quaded mesh? I would be interested to see what it takes to rig a mesh like that decimated version and try to get those deformations without copying over the weights. I feel like there are people seeing this video and assuming this mesh is okay to use out of the gates without realize that the deformations look so good because they're coming directly from a properly topologized mesh and that there are more reasons than just deformation for having good topology on your base mesh.

[@Outgang]

Yeah the skin weights were indeed transferred from the quadded version of it. I suppose it would be an interesting experiment for a skinner to try and skin this directly but even if they fail I'm not sure what it would prove. I know plenty of riggers that like to work with this very workflow: Create a simpler version of a mesh (real easy with tools like Zremesher), skin it and transfer the skinning.

[@Outgang]

It's also the logic behind using a proxy mesh for real-time cloth simulation that drives a more complex visual mesh.

[@sun_beams]

@@Outgang It would prove that there's still a reason to have properly quaded mesh. I only bring it up because I see a lot of comments on here not understanding that the quad mesh still has value because that's where you got the deformations from. For example in another comment: "I think it really gets drilled into people if they ever have to work in a larger production like an anim studio. There has to be a level of conformity between all the models so the decision is usually to have all quads as a rule to avoid any strangeness down the pipeline. I think this is ultimately a super inefficient way to work" It could be because I'm in VFX, but for the most part we cannot use a mesh as shown for anything realistically, because it won't subdivide properly. Nor should this be the original base mesh on anything which I don't think you were implying. Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means. From what I gathered in your video, you were simply stating that as a low res proxy, this type of mesh will still deform fine and can be used to reduce your polycount overall, if necessary, given you already have a properly deforming model. I just think a lot of people are taking this as, "I've been given the go ahead to never retopologize again and just start out rigging a decimated mesh" lol

[@Outgang]

@@sun_beams We're in two different industries, I'm concentrated in games and you're in VFX. A lot of things are different between our industries and I don't imply that I know what's good or not for VFX. I don't think riggers in games will bother to create a simplified/quadded mesh if they're given a mesh that contains triangles most of the time, so most of the time a mesh with triangles will be skinned as-is. Being able to re-do the topology of a mesh as only quads is a tool that riggers may or may not use, just like someone may or may not use any other tool to reach any desired outcome. If some riggers prefer to work like that, more power to them, but it doesn't invalidate or address my argument, which is that triangles do not impact deformation nearly as much as what people make it to be. Most, if not all the arguments I hear for meshes to always be quadded is some variation of "well riggers prefer it like that", not "here are why quads are better than triangles for the purposes of deformation". Well OK, I prefer to sculpt naked characters for video games because then I don't have to create clothes, which makes my job easier. It's the same argument, and it's a weak argument because it elevates the preferences of a developer over the desire to create a better end product. If I can make a mesh that is both well optimized and yet has extra geometry at different places to better support details such as folds, I will privilege that even if it makes the life of a skinner a bit harder in the process. I believe I do mention in the video that such a mesh would not tesselate properly, I'm in total agreement with you. That's why it's always important to know whether a mesh should tesselate/subdivide in the end or not, which is not something that common in video games. Even then, the mesh would subdivide, just not as well. The other fallacy here is to assume that because I use a decimated mesh as an example to make a point, that somehow I condone decimating meshes as a low-res to give riggers. I don't say that in the video, I spend most of the video disparaging the quality of the mesh, warn people like at 12:05 not to draw the conclusion that such a mesh is acceptable and provide in the end an example that strikes the balance I believe is best, a mesh that has started it's life as a properly quadded surface on which extra geometry has been cut to help the expression of certain details. This is a mesh, mind you, that has been used on productions and therefore has been validated by riggers. If people still draw the conclusion that somehow I condone creating such disgusting meshes as the decimated one, they haven't watched the video carefully enough and I'm not responsible for that.

[@pixbstudios]

Moral of the story.Adding tringles here and there won't create a problem.

[@SianaGearz]

Have you ever used a piece of icosphere for character topology?

[@mariomorales3841]

(So, edited for clarification) A couple of years ago I was having this conversation with a friend of mine who is a rigger, and he had work with a lot of studios here in Mexico, and he was super wierded out when I was insisting that we could use a lot of triangles in the retopo of the clothes of the characters we were working on, he did a fast rig on the shoulders and when he saw that it had a normal stretching he was was convinced, but the weird thing for me was that it meant that everywhere he had worked, no one had ever used triangles in such way. I even know some of people with more than 10 years working here in Mexico, and still say that triangles are a Big No. Although it was not a videogame, it was not VFX either, we were doing a 3D Animated series inside Unreal Engine, and the workflow of the assets was videogames, and, don't ask me why, I never knew, the polycount for the Main Characters was decided to be 25k, if my memory serves me right, yes that also included the hair, since it was not for actual Realtime I was pushing for a lot more, but since it was decided that 25K was the limit I put forward that triangles in the retopo for things like clothes was necessary, and also widely used in Videogames, and no one believed me actually, not even the dude that put the polycount limit.

[@pelte]

You haven't specify the context here so it's a little unclear. From a video game asset perspective, that makes no sense. Considering most assets were usually triangulated 10 years ago due to limited poly count budgets. Also making custom triangulated finger joints was a technique promoted by riggers to prevent softer deformation on hands. Not to mention; game engines do triangulate assets when you import them automatically. So custom triangulation should be done in fact to prevent random unpleasant results from engine's own triangulation process. Very sharp angles on the cloth folds are a good example if triangulation is not done properly. From vfx / commercial perspective you would want to avoid triangles as its all about clean deformation to avoid pinchy areas. Although adding a new subdivision level would also fix triangulation.

[@mariomorales3841]

@@pelte edited for more context as per requested

[@sun_beams]

While not the worst thing in the world triangles can make it difficult to select verts for painting weights. You can brush them in, but if you want to select a ring the triangles mess that right up.

[@Glitch-Gremlin]

I got a question. If im doing armor or weapons or something... and the model doesnt move...its just to model it. Does it matter if it has Triangles in there at places i cant figure out how to work a quad in?

[@3dbznessdesignz855]

Laura just what i wanted to know awesomastic

[@EnriquePage91]

Tons of people to blame for that misconception. I still fix unnecessary triangles on my meshes because of my professors’ voices slapping my inner self while I work and at the end of the day there are even cases where using triangles is BETTER to represent the proper edge flow of an asset. Selective triangles can be a very powerful tool IMO. Kinda sucks I have to remind myself of that more often than I should because of the bad habits lol

[@keltart809]

spiral loops would like to say hi. I have seen artist at vfx studios just zremesh stuff and call it done. lol

[@Outgang]

The only thing I want as spirals are fries!

[@lamotta120]

thank you

[@conkerboy]

Hi Laura, I'm from the old school and we were so brainwashed about those tris and quads, thanks for the video.

[@3dbznessdesignz855]

Laura i face stretching of uvs all the time if i fold the cloth at the bottom edges like when i extrude the edge inwards any solution for my query will make me happy

[@Outgang]

In my experience a lot of tools to extrude geometry create a lot of stretching in the UVs. Have you tried manually editing/relaxing the UVs afterward?

[@GeneralLuminescent]

So that mess of a mesh... was it just decimated? Pretty fascinating to see how well that held up despite the geometry. Also, I would HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE to be in that pose at the end!

[@Outgang]

Yeah I took the proper topologized model and just decimated it

[@brandongrey9240]

You were like “I’m about teach y’all some shi- OH wait whaaat???”

[@echo.ichigo]

I guess Decimated mesh can be calculated. But for a human to work we need the quads. The decimated mesh cant skinned properly without a proxy mesh. The selection is easier and makes a lot of things easier. but I guess The decimated things are like Binary which can be calculated by your system. And Quads are like us to understand better. Ultimately your GPU will convert it to Tringles

[@harrysanders818]

More professionals need to speak about this. The "Quads only" and "No tris ever" myth is the single stupidest harmful fanatism spread by amateurs who compensate their lack of art skills by overerly focussing on the technical aspects. It can be very hurtful for beginners. Once you realize that tris and even ngons can be your friends, you will up your topology game significantly. It is quite scary how this myth holds up for decades, with all these "quads only" cultists seemingly surveilling your models on the net, like a self claimed dark illuminati chosen ones group. Don't be fooled, the only way to have good deformation, is to test your deformation in multiple deformation scenarios that are specific to how you plan your char to deform. No quads will help you skip that process. Great Video, actually showing a real example of this. Especially important when doing low res stuff. Many people ask themselves how cerrain artists get away with such low poly count... well, it is the power of the triangle!

[@sun_beams]

Ok, professional weighing in. Sure. This mesh is deforming alright, but the weights were copied over from a mesh that was modeled properly (with quads) and rigged accordingly. If you try to paint the weights on that triangulated mess, it's going to be very difficult to get them weighted nicely and get the deformations shown here. You still need a properly retopologized mesh to rig for the best results so you can copy over all the weights to the low res mesh. If you listen to what she's saying, this kind of mesh will serve as a low resolution stand in if it's necessary, because it's pulling all the weights from the correctly weighted quad mesh. Do not start with a mesh like this. Also don't put Ngons in your mesh. A 5 sided is okay if you're going to subdivide it and you plan for that, but otherwise they mess up UV unwrapping among other things. If you're a beginner, learn to do things the hard, correct way first. Yes Picasso didn't paint his his most famous works using the established rules of painting, but if you look at his early work he mastered anatomy and the basics of painting before breaking the rules.

[@OmarHesham]

@@sun_beams Well said Casey. A lot of the hate for quads only comes from people who struggle to wrap their head around creating all quads mesh because it is harder. When they get stuck routing topology they just put a triangle there and call it a day. Now of course triangles are necessary for optimization in games and defining folds etc. but seems most use triangle topology as a crutch instead of using triangles only where needed. Another reason why quad only topology for organics is better is because when sculpting in ZBrush you'd want to have a good edge loop flow so you can use masking really quickly while sculpting and also when doing blendshapes whether on the face or the body. Something not mentioned in the video at all. How it's not just about the final result, but having a good mesh to help you get the job done faster while sculpting in ZBrush. Clean all quads cant be beat for organics and even in games. For a few years now all the head and body topology has been majorly done with quads as games slowly amps up to catch up to the quality of VFX.

[@harrysanders818]

@@OmarHesham A lot of hate towards triangles comes from people who think that technical stuff is greater than art, cause making good art is harder. Please search the net for countless examples of how well versed 3d game artists purposefully use triangles on top of a basic established good edge flow to enhance their models silhouettes, while keeping the polycount reasonable, which would not be possible with a quad only workflow. It is just as hard to use triangles wisely as it is to use quads.

[@OmarHesham]

@@harrysanders818 I do both. Quads only is harder.

[@harrysanders818]

@@OmarHesham I really like your work! The polygon budgets and the kind of models you're working at make me understand why you're saying that, though.

[@juanfernandojimenezbuitrag2434]

I am just in shock with this video and also because you are like a Final Fantasy character, like so femenine and masculine at the same time. Like you can be what you want to be

[@Outgang]

Yeah I'm somewhere in the middle these days. I don't constrain myself to gender expectations, just happy to be who I am!

[@juanfernandojimenezbuitrag2434]

In the middle of success , I am a new subscriber , your videos are amazing and encouraging as a 3d artist

[@Outgang]

@@juanfernandojimenezbuitrag2434 I'm happy to be of help Juan!

[@bryanharrison3889]

HEY... I WORKED FOR 15 MINUTES ON THAT MESH!!! DON'T DISS MY HARD WORK! lol.

[@bryanharrison3889]

I just want to say... and I want to preface this with "beauty is superficial/skin deep/doesn't matter/has nothing to do with the content" and your content is fantastic... its absolutely fantastic. Your content is beyond top notch... HAVING SAID THAT, you're also very pretty... like, spooky pretty... Like, I usually watch your vids twice. The first time, I'm distracted by the beauty, then the second time I actually focus on the content. Granted, as I stated before, I'm not here because of looks or beauty. I'm here because your knowledge and content is above and beyond most of what even paid sites offer.... the fact that you're gorgeous with fantastic bone structure and super amazing eyes is just a bonus. Disclaimer: this is not a simp post. I'm not simping. I'm just speaking fact. Good lord, you're as smart as you are pretty and talented, and its brainbending. And that's ok. I like my brain being bent. Although I typiucally use vodka to bend my skull, I don't mind an occasional outgang vid saving me a trip to the liquor store. But as i said, facts are facts... you're incomprehensibly pretty. I can't get over how your bone structure is so complimentary. Your eyes are indescribable, and your brain and skill are actually the sexiest part. So when we're all dust in the ground, beauty will not have mattered for much, but I wanted to take a moment to say WOW. even if its not important, you're still gorgeous, and REALLY easy on the eyes. Considering I'm 48 and have had to start using reading glasses for a bunch of situations, I certainly don't mind reaching for them when your vids are on... lol. IF ONLY girls around here were as pretty.... Anyway, I just wanted to address the elephant in the room, you're gorgeous. And that is NOT to detract or take away from the content, because its the cream of the crop on youtube. HOWEVER... the combination of the two is an astronomical improbability and I must acknowledge both and tip my hat to both. Nothing more attractive to me than a smart, driven, talented, skilled, attractive young lady.

[@Outgang]

Thanks for the warm words Bryan. It took me a few days to respond because I wanted to take the time to read your comment thoroughly. I really appreciate the positive words you've written. By the way, your comment "I typically use vodka to bend my skull, I don't mind an occasional outgang vid saving me a trip to the liquor store" made me giggle really hard. Thanks for being a regular on the channel and all the positive vibes you're projecting. Cheers friend!

[@frog6054]

Bruh. Looks like someone fell in love.

[@MoogieSRO]

This is such a creepy comment for so many reasons, holy shit. Laura you really shouldn't engage internet stalkers who write essays like this, it's how you end up cut apart and stored in plastic bags at the bottom of a freezer.

[@bryanharrison3889]

@@MoogieSRO Creepy in so many ways? Enlighten us as to how that's creepy. Secondly, I'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to familiarize yourself with the term "internet stalking" and kindly apologize for being ignorant and rude. You can ask laura, she will verify there's no "internet stalking" going on here. I've never attempted to email her, contact her outside of public comments on this youtube channel, nor do I plan to. Its sad that we live in an age where people are so shielded from open debate and people speaking their mind that they view stuff like what I said as "creepy" or "internet stalking". If more people left people comments like I left laura on this video, the world would be a MUCH better place. i personally find it hilarious and equally outrageous that somebody would see compliments as creepy and a long post as internet stalking. But that's ok. You have every right to your opinion. The PROBLEM with that is, if you think what I said is creepy and what I said makes me a stalker, then I can ONLY IMAGINE how poor and unrefined your conversational skills are. But again, that's OK. Your lack of skill only affects you, and your ability or inability to interact with human beings on a social level is your mountain to conquer. I can't help you with that. I can simply keep being me. But thanks for the reminder of how far society has fallen since I was born way back in 1973, before the internet, back when a person sees a smart, attractive person and has no choice but to SPEAK to them and be cordial and friendly, because when I was growing up there wasn't any tinder. Of course, suicide, depression, and divorce rates were all much lower when I was growing up too. I wonder if there's a correlation between being able to be personable, friendly, and have the ability to conversate equating to a healthier psyche, healthier relationships, and a generally better outlook on life, and if there's a correlation between swiping right for instant gratification with somebody you barely have to speak to, and skyrocketing divorce, disease, depression, and suicide rates. I may be a dinosaur, but I'm a dinosaur that can hold a conversation with anybody and can compliment whoever I want and people go out of their way to talk to me, so I don't know what to tell you. Level up, maybe? Learn interpersonal relations? lol. Have fun.

[@bryanharrison3889]

@@frog6054 It would be near impossible to fall in love with a youtube personality.

[@5ucAyman]

cannot see stuff...

[@ankushsharma6890]

By the way... You look good in this hair length

[@natedogg890]

As a rigger, this model is total garbage and will kicked back if your Rigging dept has any self respect. Why would you make life harder for literally every downstream department when you could spend half an hour cleaning up your mesh? For anyone watching this with aspirations to become a modeler, don't listen to her, follow a better channel.. I can't believe this shit

[@Outgang]

Dude, take a chill pill will you? I mention in the video at 12:05 that people shouldn't draw the conclusion that meshes that look like this is acceptable. Did you miss that part? This mesh is merely a tool to develop my argument.

[@navneethdodla94]

Buddy it seems like you're having a tough time at work. The outgang dummy is here to just teach us not show up in your deadlines. Just examples

[@Noob12369]

Just inhale and exhale long breaths it will help.

[@arrack34]

I think this vid is more a thought experiment about the close to dogmatic mindset of quads being the only way to do model, she isn't telling us to start modelling using triangles everywhere , your reaction kind of proves her point more honestly.

[@OmarHesham]

@@Outgang You did have a few quick comments in there addressing it like that bit you mentioned at 12:05 , although in this age of click bait and short attention spans, you think people will really take that into consideration or notice it? This video will be mostly used by new comers to make an excuse for their sloppy topology. They're going to point to this video saying "See a high level veteran like Laura said it's fine to have bad topology" without giving any mind to your nuanced argument in the video showing when and where to use triangles. They're just going to decimate and call it a day. Also in the video it would have been nice to highlight that quad only topology for organics is better because when sculpting in ZBrush you'd want to have a good edge loop flow so you can use masking really quickly while sculpting and also when doing blendshapes whether on the face or the body. As you know it's not just about the final result, but having a good mesh to help you get the job done faster while sculpting in ZBrush. Masking and working with clean all quad edge flow in ZBrush helps speed up the process significantly. Same thing with defining UV seams. All quads and edge loops are a breeze to UV. Clean all quads topo is the best for organics and even in games. For a few years now all the head and body topology has been majorly done with quads as games slowly amp up to catch up to the quality of VFX. I think this has been the case since the Uncharted 4 / Horizon era even. As Nate put it, this mesh will be a pain to work with and skinning it and smoothing the skinning will be a chore. We cant just push sloppy work forward and think "Well that's the riggers problem to deal with, if they're a good rigger!". A good rigger is good inspite of bad topo, why let them suffer through this? And why suffer bad topo while us modelers sculpt it? If it's clean it makes the modelers and the riggers' lives easier to work with it, not just about the final deformation result. Although it is worth noting too. I hear your point that it's not the end of the world to have a few triangles here and there, I even did that today on a non game project and it was fine. I get it! It's just that this video will be misused by the lazy to make excuses. Maybe there should have been more caveats or warnings and also showing modern real game production meshes and how much cleaner and quaded they are nowadays compared to the example pushed forward in the video as a not a big deal. Also keeping in mind you transferred the skinning from the clean one admittedly. Definitely we should keep this topic alive in the CG community and highlight when breaking the rules is good and when doing so for every mesh is sloppy. Anyway, any studio worth a damn has a standard human base mesh topology and universal UVs and is used in all the rigs to copy UVs based on vert order or UV space, so no one is doing body retopo anyway in the age of Wrap, etc. Still interesting to discuss :D I appreciate your great content!