Which mesh topology is correct?

Question

3D

Guru 3d help me understand, in general, an example is this - I am making a model of a hunting rifle with a scope, creating a mesh, I have the following question, creating a mesh for example of a barrel, I make it one, that is, all the details of the barrel flow into others, regardless of their complexity, naturally it takes more time, nevertheless, there are a huge number of videos on YouTube where they model everything in parts and simply “drown” some objects in others, creating the illusion of the integrity of the object, so which approach is correct? And in passing, a question about trises, when modeling with a single mesh, I have moments where I still have to use a triangle, for example, in a rifle model I have 5 trises, all the other 4 squares, is this acceptable or do I need to display everything on 4 squares?

Answer 1

1. And this is how it is personally more convenient for you, where are you going to put it and whether there are requirements for hidden geometry (its absence). I am an adherent of the cult of solid modeling, in particular CAD, and this issue has been unambiguously resolved: A part is a separate element, it is included in the assembly as a separate component. Interference in this case is unacceptable, except when justified. The execution of parts by one body is only permissible for the purpose of simplification. But this is an engineering approach and a feature of a solid body, but in a wireframe this rule does not work - it is not needed there.
Either way, the result will be the same., because in any editor it is possible to truncate extra surfaces before they intersect with another surface, and then stitch both along the border into one mesh. And you can not stitch, for example, to work out textures separately for each element. And there are several ways to achieve this - Boolean is simply the easiest.
It is necessary to avoid (and therefore follow) the imposition of polygons on top of each other. Here is the real problem. If you have two cylinders of the same diameter and you "insert" one into the other, then don't do it. And crossing at an angle is possible, and sometimes it is desperately necessary.
On the issue of very small details like mounting the sight .. again, the question is not for us. Depends on the task. If you even want to draw threads in holes and think that this is justified, then this is your right. On the other hand, bump mapping is still alive and some things in wireframe modeling do not need to be drawn at all. Just about any relief protrusions on the weapon concerns in the first place.
2. To be honest, I even forgot the rationale for why they are not recommended.use. Somewhere when I heard it at the very beginning, when I was using Blender, but the idea didn’t catch on.. because, as I remember now, right after this statement it was said that it would be impossible to do without it and, they say, strive, but don’t get carried away. This is ultimately resolved and along the way by subsequent editing of a particular piece. Don't bother, in general. Ultimately, there are still all triangles - to unambiguously determine the position of the plane in space, three points are necessary and sufficient. =)

Answer 2

The model should be subdivided into elements, at a minimum, based on differences in material and texture.