Quote - But appart from this, I don't see the relevance to the tris vs quads topic. All examples, in its finished form, could just as well be made with quads. Compare with modeling with nurbs. Nurbs also allows you some amazing and powerful modelling but in the end, it must be converted to quads. If you are going to sell your model that is. All of us who live by selling 3D mesh must compel by this rules or die. The customer demands it.

Perhaps they could be made with quads, but it ould be very difficult in many cases to do it like that.  No one is suggesting nurbs aren't powerful modeling tools either.  In fact, I pointed to Rhino and a parametric modeling plugin called Grasshopper as an example.

With quads, it's easy for the artist to subdivide a mesh for smoothing. No one is questioning the significance of quad topology here.  The original topic of conversation is weather or not there is ever a need for a triangulated mesh.  I am proposing that the answer is a resounding yes.  It's very true that if you have a triangle among your quads, it can potentially introduce nasty artifacts, like pinching, once it's smoothed with certain subdivision techniques. No one is disputing that fact.  When you bevel or extrude, you'd usually want to have coplanar, multi-vertex polygons.

However, if you want to get really technical; underneath the hood of most every 3D software, all quads and Ngons are being broken down mathematically into triangles, because it is computationally impossible to create a non-planar quadrilateral.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.