Hi. So lately I have been studying a lot about mesh topologies and analyzing different ways other artists would use retopology on their meshes. I have referred to the CG Human Course but also taking into account of other artists' work as well.
I understand that the result of a topology is highly dependent on the mesh's features. However, I believe it also depends on what the artist is trying to achieve which is the reason why the topology is the way it is.
As for my purpose, I am modeling a topology that is suitable for good rigging. I am analyzing each muscle group, though I am unsure if in some cases it would be unnecessary. I would provide examples on what I mean by that. (Regardless of their topology, they all seem like great topologies and not sure which approach I should use. Perhaps there are advantages/disadvantages for both types?)
NOTE: These are all images that I found online.
Notice that in COMPARISON 1, the topology is defining the arm muscles. In COMPARISON 2, it is rather simplistic.
COMPARISON 1
COMPARISON 2
As for the topology for the back muscles, I noticed most artists use a similar approach so I am not too confused about it as I can use a similar approach. Notice how even though these topologies below both define the back very well, it is still quite different in its positions.
COMPARISON 1
COMPARISON 2
Notice the difference in the calf muscles.
COMPARISON 1
COMPARISON 2
Notice the red annotation (not created by me, as it came with the original image) in COMPARISON 1. Then, notice that same spot in COMPARISON 2 and how it differs.
COMPARISON 1
COMPARISON 2
The gif below is very ideal in my eyes because if I wanted to mark/loop a nice seam separating the shoulder and chest - yet also have the chest follow the shoulder, this would be it.
Now there's no question in the face because many topologies are built similar for the face whether it is a realistic male or female, though the forehead and the bridge of the noses might be different.
From all the references I used and thus choices I made so far, this is my result. Note that I didn't do the ears yet. It's not yet finished. I'm working on a new human male character with a brand new topology for the sole purpose of experimentation, but also hopefully will use it for rigging as well as nice detailing for the skin.
NEW TOPOLOGY
ORIGINAL SCULPT
The white mesh is an imported mesh. The grey mesh is my result. Notice how the imported mesh is defining the muscle groups whereas my grey mesh is rather simplistic. Is there an advantage or disadvantage of either one of these approaches when working on retopology? Does it matter at all?
This question has been bugging my mind while working on retopologies as I didn't know the right or the wrong way to do it. Perhaps they both aren't right or wrong? But maybe one of them has a greater advantage when it comes to rigging?
Thank you all for your help.
The most important for rigging are the joints, shoulder, elbow, knees, etc. It is good to have a topology that supports the bending, which you don't seem to have.
It can be an advantage to also follow the muscle flow, but that depends on the deformations that are going to happen.
Hi Kimberly - First I want to say how impressed I am that you're diving so deep into topology. You're clearly very driven and that's going to take you far!
Now, my most to-the-point advice: Don't take topology too seriously. It's not as consequential as your average modeler makes it seem.
The topology revolution was ignited in 1998 by Bay Raitt, famous for modeling Gollum in LotR with subdivision instead of NURBs. From Jurassic Park to Gollum's initial design, NURBs was standard. Bay Raitt demonstrated how subdivision technology could be more effective for digital characters, giving rise to the importance of polygonal topology with respect to rigged deformation. This revolution was a big deal and caused the entire industry to transition from NURBs to sub-D workflows.
In its infancy, Sub-D modeling was the wild west. Can we use triangles? What about N-gons. Which direction should key edgeloops run to best deform mouths? Eyes? Shoulders? Knees?
These are the questions you're battling. But consider this: Bay Raitt didn't have an internet full of legitimate character wireframes to reference. He had to figure it out by trial and error, which is why he's somewhat famous for being the first to succeed. At this point in computer graphics, the problematic topological areas like joints and face topologies have long been solved. And it never was rocket science.
Topology is not the complex puzzle that so many new modelers (or modeling teachers) make it out to be. After 20+ years of modeling characters, I've NEVER run into a topological issue when my characters are rigged. Is it because I'm a topology master? No! Legitimate, functional topology is really only based on a few key guidelines / principles.
They're kinda hilariously low. PC's were much less powerful back then so base meshes (level 0) needed to be super low resolution. No one models base meshes like this anymore, and they haven't for well over a decade. We can easily afford higher res base meshes. PC's and software have progressed to the point of supporting millions of polygons fluidly in a viewport, including Blender.
That's not to say million-poly base meshes are wise. It's important to strike the balance of a topology that fully supports shape and deformation while still being easily workable. Modern base meshes are commonly modeled more like the level 1 sub-D (gray head above). Notice the higher resolution in the base meshes you posted.
Even the game-res topology (not intended for higher levels of sub-d) is much higher in polycount:
