I hate that the 3d community has repurposed the word topology. Topology is the mathematic study of forms that are unaffected by deformations (bends, twistes, morphs, but not breaks). In that sense, your cube+cylinder, both cubes, and Vicky 6 all have the same topology. The correct word for what we're talking about is morphology - it would make total sense to recognize that one mesh flow anticipates a specific morphology better than another. For example, you probably are aware that Vicky 6 forehead cannot be effectively morphed into a third eyeball in the same way that your generic cube cannot effectively morph into an extruded cylinder. To do a good job of this, you'd want to add some more vertices and make new polygons that simply aren't there at the moment. Simply repositioning the existing vertices will not generate an adequate representation of an eye, lid, and lashes. The morphology (underlying structure and organization of the polygons forming the forehead) is just wrong.

Having recognized that we're going to use the word topology instead, I would enjoy seeing some examples of V6 (or is it Gen 2) mesh flow that anticipates certain morphs better than some other, previous meshes do.

For example, like your extruded cylinder, does the Gen 2 mesh anticipate a tail extruded out from the lower back? Horns? Third eye? Eyeballs and lids and lashes in the palms of the hands? What is so great about the Gen 2 "topology", exactly?

 

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)