I'm curious about the necessity for triangles to be regular. It seems to me that at higher degrees of subdivision, the triangles become so small that their irregular shapes wouldn't be noticeable in the overall figure. Wouldn't taking the additional step of remeshing these triangles into better/rounder shapes increase in computational cost?
noah-ku
I think this is a great way to achieve uniform distribution, which is to center the vertices where the triangles meet. This creates a rounder shape for meshes and will make triangles less skinny or jagged. I wonder if this change to the mesh will affect its properties. For example, if we change all the triangles, would it affect the rigidity or flexibility in simulations to some degree?
I'm curious about the necessity for triangles to be regular. It seems to me that at higher degrees of subdivision, the triangles become so small that their irregular shapes wouldn't be noticeable in the overall figure. Wouldn't taking the additional step of remeshing these triangles into better/rounder shapes increase in computational cost?
I think this is a great way to achieve uniform distribution, which is to center the vertices where the triangles meet. This creates a rounder shape for meshes and will make triangles less skinny or jagged. I wonder if this change to the mesh will affect its properties. For example, if we change all the triangles, would it affect the rigidity or flexibility in simulations to some degree?