Hi! I am trying to turn the following subd into nurbs. The problem is, the topology isn’t good. As a result, I get the following effect:
This somewhat to be expected, because Rhino’s documentation says this is an (extra-)extraordinary vertex. And it’s caught in a bad spot too. It looks okay (zebra-stripes-wise) in subd but, once I go into nurbs (both the method show in gh and the ‘tonurbs’ in Rhino), the above problem happens.
From doing retopology by hand, I know the above extraordinary vertex could have been an ordinary one with some topology fiddling and therefore not have the squiggly nurbs problem. Is there a way to achieve something similar in gh? (letting the code do the work)
Thanks a lot!
The original mesh is the denser, more wrinkly one
The current remesh result is the second mesh
In discussions about triangle remeshing, I saw that some triangle remeshing are better than others because they have less vertices with many edges (less extraordinary, I guess?). It seems there is only one way to quad-remesh (comes with gh) and I can’t find a way to convince it to go easy on the extraordinary vertices
extraordinary.gh (3.7 MB)
Thanks for your reply and insights into topology, Max!
1 this made me lost continuity but is better than having a weird bump
2 I played around with the quadremesh settings but, it looks like the program doesn’t want to move the extraordinary vertex
in particular, whenever there is a y-joint (one pipe breaking into two pipe), an extraordinary vertex appears, and doesn’t go away with different settings
having good starting topology makes a lot of sense. But in this case my mesh is quite dense and messy–perhaps the quad remesh code picks up some ‘hints’ on topology that the human don’t see
3 that pentagon faces fare better is interesting. I wonder what happens if quad remesh can make use of it.