/3/ - 3DCG

>>951278
>>951279
My understanding was that poles only distort shading in their *proximity* due to the difficulties in calculating local gradients, whereas the shading errors appear on both sides of the foot as well as on the sides of the bowl - quite distant from the poles.
>dorodango the shit out of it until you get a smooth surface
>tool with a name that has the word 'adaptive' so it must solve the problem for me.
My understanding is that topology poles *cannot* be fixed by subdivision, which is why they're annoying. I pointed out that adaptive subdivision fixes it because this is unexpected according to that understanding.
>And even if that cup is just a practise object the goal of practicing is bettering your work not pressing buttons to hide problems.
The goal was to learn plasticity and cycles. Plasticity is CAD so getting a mesh out of it necessarily involves pressing buttons. I'm learning plasticity because polymodelling is a swamp filled with exactly this kind of autism.
>Do you even know what poles cause to refraction? Did you even bother to look up the terms cylindrical capping and shader smoothing?
I honestly thought I knew what those were, but maybe youtube tutorials aren't reliable here.

Since I honestly do want to learn, here's two renders. One with the shown grid fill solution to the pole, and another with the poles straight-up deleted. It looks like there's still errors in both the quad solution and the cap-less render, so is it that "poles" in this case isn't referring to the actual vertex, but the edge flow around it? But then how does this differ from pic in >>951278 for the foot? Does it have to do with the weird topology around the base of the bowl?