By Polyxo
#382471
Keeping one's NURBS patch layout clean and rebuilding trimmed surfaces (or avoiding them in the first place as is often necessary
to achieve good G2 and G3 surface continuity) makes meshing from Alias, Rhino or ICEM surprisingly straightforward so that no other
application has to be used.
Just tell me how to avoid trims on bodies with holes :)
Just looking at the Voronoi-table you have posted – it would be tedious and would yield needlessly complex geometry to try to avoid
trims in that framework. In my opinion for anything which doesn't have to be seriously high end continuity-wise (and that's the whopping
majority of models) avoiding trims just means considerably more work and in many cases questionable geometric output.
Remeshing models e.g in Zbrush is so much faster... but that's my opinion.
#382474
The table is MATLAB output. Something so simple requires no 3D modelling. But regarding consumer products, large and small, avoiding trimmed surfaces in the NURBS patch layout as much as possible is best practice and very simple to achieve.

It is a different story with Creo or SolidWorks output from engineers.

Regarding the OP's interior scene, I would still believe that a polygon based modelling software is the better choice than a NURBS based one, as one can obtain meshes that one will never be able to output from Creo or Rhino, for example.
By Polyxo
#382476
Lets agree to disagree / to work differently then :)
Your table (whatever its source), at render/texture time of course is a mesh and certainly not a mesh a CG artists
would consider displacement friendly.
Avoiding trims at all means, with the goal to yield cleanest possible geometry and then using Real Scale, a hack
which essentially assigns a dumb box projection at a predefined scale ratio is a workflow I can't quite follow...

Have a good weekend - I'm out!
Will there be a Maxwell Render 6 ?

Let's be realistic. What's left of NL is only milk[…]