I don't really understand how the triangles are appearing to have normals that are angled up and down (as shown by the "bumpy" side view). Wouldn't the normals still be perpendicular to the face of the original cylinder?

embl

Can we not just divide up the cylinder into strips of rectangles?

yifanch3

Would you please explain why this the right one detailed mesh is wrong?

I mean it is still far from accurately describe the cylinder surface, but it is definitely more accurate than the original one

ml2

Are we able to tell depth at different points on the mesh using the normals as well?

Murrowow

I feel like splitting the geometric mesh into rectangles would work a lot better. If they need to be in triangles, a rectangle can easily be split in half into triangles. I’m not sure how exactly this would improve representation but I don’t understand why that wouldn’t work as well.

mangopi

I'm a little confused as to why the fine mesh has such a drastic difference in surface area when compared to the original mesh. Shouldn't it be more accurate considering we're taking more sample points?

YutianW

Why does the normal change in this case? Especially in the picture on the right, shouldn't all triangles have the same normal direction?

I don't really understand how the triangles are appearing to have normals that are angled up and down (as shown by the "bumpy" side view). Wouldn't the normals still be perpendicular to the face of the original cylinder?

Can we not just divide up the cylinder into strips of rectangles?

Would you please explain why this the right one detailed mesh is wrong?

I mean it is still far from accurately describe the cylinder surface, but it is definitely more accurate than the original one

Are we able to tell depth at different points on the mesh using the normals as well?

I feel like splitting the geometric mesh into rectangles would work a lot better. If they need to be in triangles, a rectangle can easily be split in half into triangles. I’m not sure how exactly this would improve representation but I don’t understand why that wouldn’t work as well.

I'm a little confused as to why the fine mesh has such a drastic difference in surface area when compared to the original mesh. Shouldn't it be more accurate considering we're taking more sample points?

Why does the normal change in this case? Especially in the picture on the right, shouldn't all triangles have the same normal direction?