Suzanne 2.0

Hi guys !

I made a V2 of suzanne with full quad wire and uv’s.

The blend

Maybe we could use this one instead of the current one to have something better.
We can still edit this one of course.

What do you think ?

1 Like

Looks good. I only noticed some differences in the ear. I think the details in the ear of the original suzanne are made on purpose.

And a good modeler will make a full quad because it’s not so complicated to do and because the result is always better.

For suzanne, if people prefer the current version no problem, I just think that an icon like suzanne or the teapot should be perfect to represent the work of the fondation.
After if they don’t want it, no worry.

Wow, I really like this one and I think it would be a great update to the existing Suzanne! :slight_smile:
Personally I don’t at all share the need to stick to old standards out of mere tradition.
Just like how Blender should always strive further and improve on old concepts where newer iterations are superior, Suzanne would do well to go with the times.

You have my vote for this one as the new standard Suzanne. Including the fixed ear detail, which I do think looks more appealing on your updated version.

Having unlinked eyes and few triangles is a good choîce for a primitive used for test.

And a good modeler will make a full quad because it’s not so complicated to do and because the result is always better.

Yafu have shown it. It is not just another topology. It is clearly not the same shape.
I think the way Suzanne is made was intentional.
IMO, to prefer a rounder shape is just a matter of taste, not a matter of skill.

Edit: Maybe , 6-pointed stars are not necessary.
Probably, there are here to keep polycount at 500 faces and 968 tris.

But pitiwazou could modify the shape to match a little better with the original suzanne, right? (I think the expression in the eyes is different too).
I think no need to discuss hard here, it is no need to eliminate original suzanne. If the developers think it is useful, we could have both versions and even pitiwazou version could be added as addon.

That’s why I talked about the possibility of adding as addon.

I think the original Suzanne is a little better to explain some things, like how something that looks like an ugly shape can become better by subdividing:

That’s bullshit. As I said, being dogmatic about all-quads for subdivision modeling is a a pointless obsession, because triangles turn into quads anyway, after the first subdivision.

Have you ever found yourself creating topology like this?

Well guess what, there’s two “higher order” triangles right in there! Here’s the control geometry:

If you don’t need the fine control (in a flat-ish area, for instance) you could get this topology much easier by just using triangles and let the algorithm do the work for you. Of course, that means you have to understand how triangles subdivide, which is something you won’t learn if you follow the bad advice of obsessive all-quad modelers.

It’s quite annoying to see even good artists declare that quads-only is “the right way”, even criticizing the works of others based on that belief. If Catmall and Clark didn’t think triangles were useful, they wouldn’t have put them in their algorithm - they were used to work with quad-only patches before, after all.

Here’s the first character Pixar did with their new technology. Notice how much expression is in that face, even compared to some of their later work?

This is the wireframe:

If you posted this on a CG forum today, people would rant about the “bad” topology…

Here’s the deal: your job as a modeler is to create the desired shape, not a pretty wireframe. If using triangles reduces the complexity of your control geometry and saves you work steps, you have done a better job.

By the way, those “arrowhead” quads you put around the eye poles don’t behave all that well with subdivision either. I’m not saying they’re a problem here, but if you obsess about topology, maybe you should obsess about those as well.

Ok, make your model with tris, add a multi resolution and start sculpting your model.
After come and tell me, tris are good :wink:

We are in 2016 not in 1995 without sculpt tools.
We have great tool to support dense meshes and a quad mesh is always better for sculpting and an homoganeous mesh is good too.

In my post I said full quad to tell it’s clean and you can sculpt it, not to tell that you always need full quad or tris are bad.
I use tri too on the part we don’t see and on flat surfaces, never on rounded surface, the result is always bad.

Don’t understand why that bother you, a quad bullied you at school ? ^^

Seriously if you issue with my model it’s because I said full quad, I don’t know what I can do, add some tris on the model ?

Not only for sculpting but for making topology (tris interrupt edge loops) and animation (tris don’t deform nicely). Models with tris are just a pain to work with, full quads and a few poles/diamonds when needed feels much better for me. Maybe you can end up with a few hidden/tiny tris but they are not really wanted in most cases.

I don’t know how much louder to say it: You get an ALL-QUAD mesh after the FIRST SUBDIVISION. For free! Even on multires!

Now, if you pay attention, I’m not saying triangles can’t cause problems. They can give rise to topological patterns that are problematic, for shading, for deformation, for sculpting, etc. - but the cause of the problems are those patterns, not the triangles themselves. Those pole-eyes you modeled into Suzanne? Those won’t sculpt and deform well, either. Your all-quad obsession didn’t save you. The only thing that can save you is understanding the patterns!

Seriously if you issue with my model it’s because I said full quad, I don’t know what I can do, add some tris on the model ?

You said that a quad-only model is always better and that a good modeler always does a quad-only mesh. I don’t care how you model, as long as you don’t preach this nonsense.

I use tri too on the part we don’t see aor on flat surfaces, never on rounded surface, the result is always bad.

Now you’re back-tracking a little, which is good! But you wouldn’t have done that if I hadn’t challenged you. Every beginner modeler who would’ve read your opinion would’ve otherwise picked up your bullshit and would’ve repeated it. It’s damaging to the entire industry, because you have modelers fucking around with meshes for hours just to have a good-looking wireframe.

Read Cyaoeu’s post. Don’t have time to deal with that.

if my proposal is not good for you, ok I will delete the link and keep it for me.

Two people agreeing on something wrong doesn’t make it right. I understand that modelers make bad experiences with triangles in the beginning and then, in a “Pavlovian” fashion, start avoiding them intuitively. They are reaffirmed by their peers, who have made similar experiences and start preaching about the evils of triangles. However, it’s all but a simple misunderstanding.

Anyway, as dogs get older, it becomes harder to teach them new tricks. I’ve tried logical argument, I’ve tried show-and-tell with images, but I didn’t use candy. Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe I’m the wrong guy to tell you that you’re wrong.

Edit: I found an actual artist to agree with me, maybe you can take his word over mine:

"A lot of the answers commonly given are also commonly wrong and stem for outdated, mis-stated assumptions and chinese whispers on “how the big boys do it”.


Singularities and various other things are way worse to deal with than a 5sided poly or a triangle, and very often the prophets of the AllQuads gods come up with some hideous topologies filled with N-edge junctions and horrible default tension to respect a rule they really don’t understand.


All in all, it’s a bunch of rules that a lot of people promote, but very few have any reasonable technical understanding of, and hence they get applied in all the wrong ways.

An understanding of the technical constraints and processes downstream from the modeller is what sets apart a good modeler that produces technically valid results first go, from a poor one that has to rely on dogmas (that can be grossly mis-applied) like “all quads or death!”, and then hand-over to character FX a mesh that looks like a colony of starfish had an orgy on it and then had a very small nuclear warhead detonated in the middle.

if my proposal is not good for you, ok I will delete the link and keep it for me.

No, your mesh is fine and the topology really is better. I’d be fine with including it, but it shouldn’t be replacing Suzanne. As an artist, you should understand that fixing some imperfection in an iconic piece of art is not an improvement. Maybe that’s where our perception of Suzanne diverges, maybe for you it’s just another stylized monkey head.

The remark about quad-only obsession was just an aside and I would’ve left it at that if you hadn’t doubled down on preaching the quad-only religion.

There is the “Add Mesh: Extra Objects” addon, maybe including it in the addon would be a compromise?

The largely irrelevant topology discussion aside, his mesh just looks better. Suzanne can and should be iterated upon precisely because it’s an iconic piece of art. It should definitely replace the default. Someone can relegate the old model to an addon or some such.



The other reason is because Suzanne is used so much for tests, but really isn’t a good enough mesh for testing on. It really needs to be manifold, especially for testing glass and similar shaders.

Mickey Mouse is a iconic character, it’s not an iconic piece of art. Case in point, even Disney isn’t remaking “Steamboat Willie” with any of the blander later Mickeys. By the way, the latest version of Mickey is a throwback to the early version.

If you want to iterate on a piece of art after it is “done”, you’re being George Lucas. Don’t be George Lucas.

Suzanne is a piece of art ? Sériously ?

suz monkey had criss crossing edges
I mean not a super model with nice topo in any way
but it has been there for so long

might be time to get a newer one LOL

happy bl

You want to call it a piece of art, fine. You want to call it a character, fine. Suzanne and Mickey are clearly the same kind of thing, whatever you want to call it. I was merely following your lead, so effectively youre arguing semantics with yourself.