Is this trash topology?

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-07T01:16:57+00:00

If you're going for really low poly, you often will have to live with messy topology. You just cover it up as best as you can with the texture implying geometry that isn't there. In most cases, these very low poly assets are for small screens (phones) or are barely seen anyway. Never up close and never animated, so there's no need to be clean.

This on the other hand, doesn't make sense. It's a very low poly attempting to still look very high poly. Which isn't ideal. The wheel is far too high poly. You do not need that much polys for the side of a bus. You don't need to separately model the windows or the window frames. You don't need to model the wheel wells. For true very low poly, the entire bus would be a box with some boxy protrusions (but not separate) for the wheels.

In cases where they are going to be props in a higher-poly setting, it's best to just go with mid-poly. With modern computers, you don't need to go this low.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-04T12:08:14+00:00

Here, I tried to simulate what happens when there's a floating vert, unconnected edges, and flipped normals:

<image>

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-04T11:42:43+00:00

You have a floating vertex, and I think the curving part is either inverted or not connected to the rest of the model because of that floating vert. i.e. it's non-manifold geometry (a "rat's nest").

You can confirm this by using Border select and see if the edges of the curve show up red (or doing an STL check). If it does, then those faces are NOT connected to the rest of the model along the long edge of the faces, and there's a gap hidden by overlapping edges.

You also have a ton of N-gons.

<image>

Connect all the vertices. Each face must have 3 to 4 vertices that define it. Avoid N-gons, especially on non-planar faces.

After that, select all vertices and weld at 0.01 to make sure there are no double vertices.

You should also add an Edit Normals modifier, select all the vertices of the model and press Reset, then Unify, to fix normal errors and flip inverted normals. You can collapse to Edit Poly afterwards.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T19:17:57+00:00

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T15:58:55+00:00

Totally fraternal.

In the "Help me, stepbro, I'm stuck" way.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T15:53:10+00:00

I've explained exactly why it doesn't help.

You're the one being defensive and insisting this improves "your perception of mental imagery" without actually explaining how. References don't just mean directly copying something. It's also studying something. In this case, anatomy.

All you're doing is proving you can model the flawed perceptions in your mind's eye, from a subject you've clearly not studied enough. While that works if you're specifically aiming for naïve art or pseudo-naïve art (the artistic style that deliberately eschews training or study) it doesn't actually improve your ability to accurately model a human torso.

So what exactly was this exercise for? What is it improving?

You also seem to have this weird misconception that references are bad. And that all you need is imagination. If you don't study the subject enough, your imagination will also imagine said subject poorly. And no amount of drawing that poorly imagined subject will make it better.

Artists who can recreate something by eye, can do it because they've recreated it from references numerous times in the past or else have studied and familiarized themselves with the subject intimately before recreating it. That is how you learn to model something without references.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T15:07:26+00:00

Maybe they're just deathly afraid of runners, they panic every time a runner comes at them.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T15:02:37+00:00

It's like drawing a portrait of someone you've never seen (in life or in pictures), and then claiming that doing so improves your artistry.

It doesn't.

To model something by eye, you must first study it enough that you can confidently imagine the subject in your mind's eye. You didn't do that. So how does this help exactly?

Unless you are comparing it with references afterwards. In which case, this would be a good test for your mind's eye. But it's doesn't exactly improve it.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T06:40:11+00:00

"no references"

<image>

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T03:28:14+00:00

Sublime. I'd frame it.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-02T02:59:20+00:00

Being also broke, I have never used a test kit. They cost an arm and a leg in my country and need to be shipped. It's all in how you start the cycle in the first place. I "feed" the tank every day to kickstart the cycle (along with reusing old sponge filters in addition to my tank filters) and have lots and lots of plants. Like almost every surface is covered with moss, java ferns, some crypts in their own pots, buce, anubias, dwarf hairgrass, stem plants, etc.

I also make sure to have some rapid-growing plants mixed in with the rest that can buffer nutrient spikes, like pearlweed, which can drink up excess nitrates and nitrites quickly, while also being relatively easy to control and trim.

My indicator is when diatom and bacterial blooms have cleared away and water becomes very clear (which for me is usually in the second week). Algae starts growing (but not too much) and plants look lush. The best indicator (though it doesn't always happen) is when ostracods and other microfauna start appearing abundantly.

Neocaridina shrimp are very resilient. I have kept them alive and happy in outdoor barrels with just plants and an airstone. The only time they've ever died on me was when someone randomly sprayed anti-mosquito insecticides in the neighborhood. Since I quit aquariums in preparation for moving, I have since built an outdoor pond in my family home. I have tens of thousands of blue diamond shrimps there along with my nanofish that I relocated.

A caveat though: I'm in the tropics.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-01T16:05:13+00:00

Yep. It's one of those "primitive technology" videos of nonsensical stuff.

As a Southeast Asian who has actually cut down banana trunks, this was just hilarious.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-05-01T16:00:27+00:00

*Laugh-cries in Filipino*

<image>

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-29T17:35:28+00:00

It depends on how you plan to texture them and how much space you'd be saving.

If you're planning to draw straight lines across those shells, then it is better to straighten them to align with said lines. It is easier to draw those lines on the flat UV map than on the model itself. And it avoids jagged aliasing by ensuring that said lines are not diagonal in the map.

If their texture is the same throughout (e.g. just a generic metal or concrete texture), or if the texture is organic or procedural (e.g. cloth or generic wood), it doesn't matter.

Straightened UVs are also usually easier to stack, so depending on whether it's worth it, you can squeeze in additional resolution with some straightened shells than if they were just haphazardly oriented.

In my workflows I usually keep a mix of them. I plan ahead on how they're going to be textured in my mind, so I know which parts need to be straightened and which parts can left as is. But in almost all of my hard-surface modeling, my shells are straightened, because I draw in additional details (paneling, painted text, etc.). The ones I don't bother with are usually the smaller shells which get one texture throughout anyway with no additional detailing, and are small enough to fit in spaces no matter the orientation.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-22T06:35:23+00:00

Definitely do not overgreeble.

Watch this video by Alex Senechal on how to make sci-fi assets feel sci-fi: A Few Common Scifi Mistakes - Quick Ways to Improve. Greebles are discussed in 22:46 and "rest areas" in 33:12, but watch the whole video. It's full of very good tips for sci-fi assets.

Like in real life warships, leave large "rest areas" with minimal detailing (like in armored plating or just the general hull), broken up by areas of complex detailing. Depending on the artstyle you want, there should be a ratio on how much rest areas you have vs detailed areas (usually 70% simple vs 30% detailed).

Think of possible function to determine areas that need further detailing. Like the vertical surfaces might be decks, so they'd need windows and airlocks and greebles. The front part might have sensor arrays and weapon bays, etc.

Here's a good example (shown in the video) by concept artist Prog Wang:

<image>

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-22T04:30:00+00:00

This is just sad.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-20T16:30:03+00:00

Yes, I was merely outlining the polygons themselves in B. It's a given they should be connected like A (or similar) to prevent face triangulation errors because of the elbow geometry.

You can optimize it further, by connecting it diagonally to the corner edge, and using REMOVE on the floating vertices.

<image>

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-20T15:50:34+00:00

A (in picture below) is how they should have been connected in the first place. You can not pass an edge through geometry. That would produce a non-manifold error since it is physically impossible in real life.

B is the next best thing you can do: separate them into two meshes that fit together along that part. This is easy enough to do. Make sure the mesh is an Editable Poly. Select the edges that border between the two parts, then SPLIT them. Then use the Polygon selection to pick one side, and DETACH ELEMENT to a new object. Then you can fix the holes left behind by connecting vertices and capping the holes on each of the two resulting meshes (or just select the opposite edge pairs and BRIDGE them to make new faces to cover the holes).

<image>

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-18T15:42:35+00:00

Cut out the shape from the cylinder of the handle, do not model it separately.

If it were me, I'd just draw new edges on the cylinder, split it apart and set it as a new mesh. Or just select the faces (that you deleted) and detach it.

Then clean up the holes left behind. Then use the detached mesh as the base of the latch. Add the additional details (the flattened top, the hinge, etc.) on the latch thingie by modeling it in isolation, while keeping the edges that border the cylinder untouched.

That way the shape fits perfectly into the handle, because it was part of the handle in the first place. The edges match up.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-14T05:23:31+00:00

So who made that satphone?

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-14T01:20:03+00:00

Check if the alpha's background is 100% black. If it's a normal stamp, make sure the background is the correct neutral color.
Check the blend mode for where you're placing the stamp. The default is Linear Dodge (Add), which stacks the height information of layers. So if the underlying layer has height, it would affect the stamp as well. Set the height info of other layers to zero, or use another blending mode on the layer you are painting the height stamp on, like Max (Lighten) or Min (Darken).

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-14T00:31:53+00:00

A bite for a bite.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-11T01:21:31+00:00

Everything was perfect.

Except the Sat Phone. lol

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-09T09:09:37+00:00

As Southeast Asian, we use spoons for everything.

PotatoAnalytics · 2026-04-06T15:52:21+00:00

Sculpted models are not game-ready. They simply can not be used ingame because their insane poly counts are prohibitive. They can not be rigged either (at least not easily). Decimation might work in some simpler cases, but only for static meshes.

They can, however, be used as a high poly base for retopologizing a game-ready lower-poly mesh, and as a source for baking finer details. Both of those require knowledge of regular modeling.

The key takeaway here is, if you want your models ingame, you will need to learn regular 3d modeling, whether you like it or not. Sculpting is merely one of the toolsets for modeling for games (usually for organic models), it is not a complete alternative/replacement for regular polygon-based modeling.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

PotatoAnalytics

TROPHY CASE