I believe the faces for the mesh are already outside-facing, there is just no inner face. I’ll check the mesh in a bit with blender and update my comment if I’m wrong.
I know right, I hated the teapot hat and then learned it had part of the lid missing and instantly became a huge fan.
2 Likes
Since its release all the way back in June 2007, the Teapot Hat had visible holes around the lid and spout. They’re in very deliberate places, and changing it after nearly eighteen years would be silly.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071102081045/http://www.roblox.com/Item.aspx?ID=1045408
Covering up these gaps would not only go against its history in the context of Roblox, but the Utah Teapot as a whole. This model was created by Martin Newell in 1975, using Bezier curves that were entered manually by hand after sketching out a reference on graph paper. Notice how his reference doesn’t connect the lid to the body of the teapot?
While Roblox could easily handle doubling, tripling, even quadrupling the number of faces used in the Teapot Hat, we still have to consider that the original release intentionally left these gaps in the mesh.
While I couldn’t find the details on how the original Utah Teapot was rendered, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was double sided. University of Utah CS Graduates Edwin Catmull and Fred Parke went on to work on the 3D face used in Futureworld, released one year after the creation of the Utah Teapot.
These gaps are intentional, there’s no inverted geometry to correct.
8 Likes
I see… Well, if we apply a Solidify modifier to hide the inverted faces in the video below, would it work? While I understand it is intentional to have those invisible gaps in the interior of the teapot, we should look forward to seeing a better fix that doesn’t afflict that much of the design of the model:
He’s saying if it’s intentional then there’s no reason to change it. I doubt we’ll get a quick “fix” for this after the workclock situation anyways. (feel free to read through the topic but here’s a reply from hooksmith that sums it up)
1 Like
Honestly, I wouldn’t consider it to be a major issue if the design of the item was changed, even though both the Adurite and Golden teapots already have both the center of the teapot fixed (besides the tip that is). However, why not just redesign it a little to fit in with the others? I understand that it has a classic (2007) look, but given that, they’ve fixed this item before with the retextured Golden teapot made (2008), and they did it again in (2014) with the Adurite teapot. The only parts they haven’t actually fixed were the tip of each teapot and were able to put the center back into place. It’d be a quick and easy change, if they were to change it.
I resent this due to the fact I replied to the wrong person.
If anything the mesh of the adurite and golden teapots should be changed to fit the original Teapot mesh, not the opposite. Again, this does not just have to do with it being a “classic” appearance, but also the fact that this goes against the design of the Utah Teapot which has been a staple in 3d modelling since 1975. Please look over the historical information that @Spectaqual provided. I’d be fine if you continued to argue for the creation of inner faces for these meshes so that there was no see-through spots, but to try and change a “flaw” in the mesh of a model that is synonymous with the very concept of 3d modelling, is nonsensical to me.
1 Like