Dev:Ref/Requests/Editing/FgonsNgons

Fgons vs Ngons

These two examples show how Blender can not make fgons with adjacent faces

http://wiki.blender.org/pub/Requests/EditingFeatures/f1.gif http://wiki.blender.org/pub/Requests/EditingFeatures/f8.gif

These show how the faces in wings3d not only create ngons but also how they are commonly used as a tool for rapid face selection and extrudeing. http://wiki.blender.org/pub/Requests/EditingFeatures/f2.gif http://wiki.blender.org/pub/Requests/EditingFeatures/f3.gif

http://wiki.blender.org/pub/Requests/EditingFeatures/f4.gif

And this one shows how the selection of several faces will cteate craters in the mesh, usefull for mesh destruction modeling

http://wiki.blender.org/pub/Requests/EditingFeatures/f5.gif http://wiki.blender.org/pub/Requests/EditingFeatures/f7.gif

---

I'm confused... what exactly is your request/suggestion? What do you think fgons should do, and why? You can have vertex groups right now to easily select stuff, so if that's all you want, you can use that. Or, are you saying f-gons should be like vertex groups, but for faces only? In which case I don't think that would make sense because for bender fgons just hide geometry (specifically edges) that the user doesn't care about. If you hide a non-coplanar edge, then you are hiding important information about the mesh. So then you want something other than f-gons.

-- TedSchundler - 09 Nov 2004

---

A more wings3d-like mesh structure is being implemented independantly of the current one (it will suppliment, not replace, the current mesh system). See BlenderDev/HeMesh. I intend to address as many of the points you ngon people bring up in this project as possible. -- Blenderwiki.JosephEagar#01Feb105 JE

---

@TedSchundler: The advantages I see are an abstraction of certain processes, and simplification of others. It also helps to not have the view being cluttered up be many edges, when in fact you're only going to want to use the selection as a single face. I would also advocate automatic creation of Ngons when suitable, perhaps if you subdivided a set of polys that were attached to others, all of which were quads, you'd get all quads instead of several new quads from the subdivision, with the adjacent old quads turned into a quad and triangle. These wouldn't actually be quads, but pentagons, but the simplification is what we're after.

-- ChrisLeSueur - 12 Sep 2005