If I remember right, by default T-Splines splits nurb patches into tiny sections near star point junctions, it also creates a form of “edge loops” that span from one star point to another across a surface, which i remember not liking that much. The plus side to this method is you get a “lighter” nurb model, but with some loss in accuracy especially at sharper corners. In T-Splines I believe you have two options for nurb conversion, where on quads at least, you get one patch per sub-d face, or you can simplify the surface, and bridge patches across multiple faces as long as they do not contain any star points of triangles. Rhino will produce one nurb patch per sub-d face for all quads even at star points, except for “triangles”, which become three smaller nurb patches to maintain continuity. Nurb conversion is very different between the three programs, with Clayoo producing at least four patches per sub-d face similar to polygon based programs such as Lightwave or MODO, except in nurb format. As far as I know, all three are based on the Catmull Clark subdivision system, so the sub-d smoothing part should similar, except T-splines treats “star points”, and “triangles” a little different than the other two, and will not produce G2 continuity at these junctions. I’ve played more with Rhino and Clayoo sub-d conversion than T-Splines or Fusion, but here’s my take on the differences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |