Reply To: Is this hard surface geometry ok?

[Catherine Irkalla]

Thanks! I can see now in that larger picture and in the blend what you did.

So I want to check, then, if these are the correct answers to my questions since, as I mentioned, my question is about general practice even moreso than this particular piece:

1. Is the general design of having a ring of faces around screw holes (and the C-shaped hole) an industry best practice?

Based on your version I’m guessing “yes”

2. If so, should it generally be a single ring, or multiple rings? If it varies how I can I learn when to know when to use a single ring or multiple rings? ie is there a general best practice guideline that can be followed?

Based on your version I’m guessing “1 ring” though I’d like to know a resource that will help me better understand this choice.

3. If rings around screw holes is normally a best practice, in a piece like this does it over-complicated the topology and should it be reserved for complex pieces?

Based on your version I’m guessing “no, having rings around the screw holes does not overly complicate the geometry”

4. If the rings around the holes is generally acceptable, are there issues with this specific layout other than the number of rings? For example, can have a ring of faces directly acting as an objects outside edge cause issues? Should I instead create a loop that wraps around the entire outside edge of the object, have the holes have small rings of faces around them, then connect the hole-loops to the outside loop? If single rings are ok, then I assume its ok for there to be a single face between a screw hole and the objects outside edge as seen in the top right screw hole, though to me this seems like a suspect design.

Based on your version I’m guessing “You should have a thin ring of faces around the entire outside edge of the object, a small ring around the holes, a larger ring of faces around the C-Shaped hole.

5. There are three five-sided poles in the current topology. Is it better to keep the overall current design of the topology or try to eliminate or reduce the number of poles? (this is basically another way of saying question 3)

Based on your versions I’m guessing “poles are no issue, make rings around the holes and connect them to the overall structure and don’t worry about poles”

Thanks for your feedback on my understanding of these questions based on your model as an answer.

Regarding: “the shape of the quads are not importend”

I agree on the idea based on the model’s expected use cases, however I’m trying understand if its best practice to ensure the quads are square-ish or if that is not a best practice and I’m just imagining that.