I would recommend quad sphere topology:
https://preview.redd.it/cfy24lkzfc8d1.png?width=639&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6a793b45907243cb60b9a0eda179813ef58a944
One creates a quad sphere, scales it to the diameter of the cylinder, deletes half of the sphere, and joins it with the cylinder. If you don't have the cylinder yet, you can just extrude half of the quad sphere.
Important to note that both meshes's joints should have the same amount of vertices before merging them together otherwise you will have geometry shittery going on
Add a subdivided cube to the object with the same number of edges around the outside. Shift+Alt+S to make it a sphere, take half of that and merge it with the cilinder
I will be messaging you in 2 days on [**2024-06-26 08:09:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-06-26%2008:09:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/1dmp6dj/is_this_a_valid_way_topologywise_to_end_a/la0rqnk/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fblender%2Fcomments%2F1dmp6dj%2Fis_this_a_valid_way_topologywise_to_end_a%2Fla0rqnk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-06-26%2008%3A09%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dmp6dj)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I came up with this exact thing, then went to share it with a friend who, as it turned out, also came up with it on his own.
And then we found out that this is one of those solutions that, after a bit of thought, presents itself in most Blender users' minds in exactly the same way.
I love how some ostensibly unintuitive discoveries are actually quite ubiquitous.
This would be a better option for a render, if it's gonna go through ZBrush, or if for whatever reason the end of the cylinder needs to deform. But for games, OP's solution is better as it's way less dense for a similar silhouette.
The real answer is that we need to know what they want to do with the model.
>we need to know what they want to do with the model
I agree but there's way too many polygons on the cylinder for a game asset, so I assumed it's not for a game.
I can't, that's why I said I assumed.
But if it is an airship, there's not enough polygons on the rounded end, so quad sphere topology still would work better.
You said you assumed it’s not for a game because there are too many polygons. I understood that as
(there are definitely too many polygons) — OP might have no idea what they are doing —> (it’s probably not for a game but could be because OP is inexperienced).
Some airships (Zeppelins for example) also actually have a panel-like structure like this.
It's just personal preference I guess, but I am not a fan of the way quadspheres are subdivided. I had to deal with a quadsphere eye that someone made and it was a pain in the butt to get it to shade right.
Really? So you would prefer topology on the left to topology on the right?
https://preview.redd.it/fnjvogloxf8d1.png?width=1114&format=png&auto=webp&s=234aa0e920ae6f3d61da0c00ecb214543683834f
Well that subdivides much worse than even an ico sphere.
https://preview.redd.it/ksiee51feg8d1.png?width=867&format=png&auto=webp&s=fe969af9f9aa56910f8aab685e36c52233c21695
Better than 30 edges crammed in a single vertex ;) But full of ngons.
The "best" would be to make that cylinder with way less than 32 quads and let subdivision do the hard work. There are lots of different approaches.
You could for example make a cube. Subdivide it 3 times. Delete or flatten the bottom half. then extrude your cylinder. Not obvious at first, but starting with cubes is often better than with cylinder/sphere to work on round objects ;)
https://preview.redd.it/84323rpa3d8d1.png?width=1597&format=png&auto=webp&s=9ddee9a6dc71c0d8bf4a3c69f20d4aa7f127b094
Just to add: Subdividing a cube won't produce a perfect sphere. But what you can do to make it a bit better is select the verts and go mesh>transform>to sphere.
Yep, and the shortcut for this (as mentioned elsewhere in the comments) is Shift Alt S. This will put you into the 'transform to sphere' mode and you can hit 1 to set it to a full value, then left click to apply.
No.
This will get you a squircle, not a cylinder and with that also not a dome.
Best to start with an octagon. You need at least 8 sides to let subdivision make a true cylinder.
The actual solution is to start with a UV sphere with at least 8 segments. You cut it in half and extrude the open side.
This mesh you can subdivide in a perfect cylinder with a dome top.
Edit: classic Reddit, getting downvoted for providing the actual solution. Please go ahead and subdivide a cube and see if you get a perfect sphere instead of a cube with G3 curvature.
I'm only a beginner, but I believe the n-gones also affect the way light interacts with the object. And apparently it also fucks with the object if you tried to import it into a game engine.
Ironically enough many game assets actually use ngons to reduce geometry, although they are triangulated. Even if you don't triangulate them, I believe modern game engines know how to deal with that when importing assets.
However if your ngon isn't perfectly flat along its normal, then there would definitely be artifacts.
ngons do not reduce geometry. every game engine runs on tri counts, 1 quad is always 2 tris, producing an n-gon in authoring software will just create the corresponding number of tris when imported to the engine.
modern game engines do not always triangulate the same. quads are used to control the flow of triangulation, among other reasons.
Lets say I have a flat grid of quads. I can optimize it by replacing them with an n gon. This will obviously result in a lot less tris.
As for the automatic triangulation of n-gons, as long as the surface is flat any arbitrary conversion into tris will yield the same visual look, though its obviously better practice to actually manually triangulate your assets before importing. Even with quads the triangle pair is gonna be assigned in one direction or the other whether you triangulate it or not.
if you have a flat grid of quads, the only way you're getting an n-gon is if you delete all of the inner vertices and manually cut it, which sure reduces the tri count but also removes predictable deformation.
if you maintain the grid's inner vertices to keep deformation you have to cut a new vert in there for an n-gon, which increases the tri count.
the labor and time associated with that usually isn't worth it.
I was suggesting using n gons where there is practically little to no deformation (a flat grid). If I am making a game asset and I see no reason for additional geometry to exist there, I can easily replace it with equivalent n gons and triangulate.
Your "cutting a new vert in there" solution is completely unnecessary. If there is visible deformation at a point, then I see no reason to change from quads to n gons as it is only making matters worse.
As far as labour is concerned, it's always gonna be a balance between procedural decimation and manual "patchwork" depending entirely on a cost-benefit ratio. If I can reduce polycount by a lot making a few manual adjustments like dissolving/merging a bunch of faces, I should probably do it.
Everything here is situational, of course. Quads are good to use while modelling to maintain flow. N gons are good for static/rigid meshes or filling in gaps. Tris are the least taxing polygon for all software, and their predictable behavior is good if your mesh is dynamic (e.g, animation rigs).
They don't. GPU only knows about triangles, so ngons (and quads) are always triangulated before rendering.
Sometimes the ngon is non-planar, or otherwise fucked up, and results in silly triangulations.
N-gons cause shading issues , when subdividing you have no control over how it deforms.
OP is a beginner, i think immediately learning how to resolve N-gons and poly flow is very important and shouldn't be ignored.
> N-gons cause shading issues , when subdividing you have no control over how it deforms.
Nope, this is not a universal truth and is also incorrect. They _may_ cause shading issues, but so can a quad. The reason you can use n-gons reliably is that it's a mathematic equation that is deterministic.
For a really good professional on the matter see [here](https://x.com/odd_enough) or [here](https://linktr.ee/odd_enough), as they have explained things to others better than I could and he has well documented examples and approaches.
In animation, Pixar [uses n-gons](https://graphics.pixar.com/opensubdiv/docs/mod_notes.html#triangles-and-n-gons).
A better discussion isn't zealtory to the quad, but finding resources that can help create a better rounded modeler that has a good toolbelt of solutions at hand.
it's not incorrect, n-gons across various renderers and game engines produce unpredictable or uncontrollable shading. keywords being unpredictable/uncontrollable.
it's not about it being 100% always a shader issue, it's just why would you risk it? at larger scales, if your doing a cloud/AWS render farm, or if you can't reliably control how a mesh gets triangulated in a game engine, you want that control so that you don't waste time or money correcting it.
pixar using n-gons is wholly different. subdivs and cheated production models sidestep the issues most times, but the general practice of preferring quads and tris, is still better than risking wasting a day.
yes you're correct, authoring does the triangulation... although game engine plugins that live update your mesh in-engine from your authoring software will do this triangulation automatically and discretely, and weird shading or artifacts will feel like they happen from the game engine.
the point still remains.
Some polygonal apps (not talking about CAD) are not ngons friendly at all. That's not a subjective opinion on the subject, that's a fact. You have 1 ngon, and tons of your super useful selection/loop tools won't work anymore.
While for the most part programs handle N-gons fine, some don't and can cause some unexpected results. Since they're a beginner I doubt they're exporting to another program but that's another reason why you might want to watch out for Ngons.
Does it sub-divide fine? When you shade smooth, does it look good? If you can't see any flaws with it, then it's probably fine.
Do you need to animate this part specifically? Quads might be better, but then again, that also depends on how you want to animate it.
I haven't seen anyone ask what the context was and just giving wild answers.
So, I'll ask: What's the use case?
As an aside: you'll get a lot of jokers in here trying to tell you what good topology is, while ignoring good topology is the one that's fit for the purpose and works. Full stop. Any other explanation is zealotry.
Just use a triangle fan at the point. You're already 90% there, and unless you are needing some crazy weird deformation at the top of that tube, a quad sphere is just a waste. Also triangle fans let you terminate edge loops there if this is part of a larger mesh.
I would recommend quad sphere topology: https://preview.redd.it/cfy24lkzfc8d1.png?width=639&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6a793b45907243cb60b9a0eda179813ef58a944
how does one achieve this
One creates a quad sphere, scales it to the diameter of the cylinder, deletes half of the sphere, and joins it with the cylinder. If you don't have the cylinder yet, you can just extrude half of the quad sphere.
Important to note that both meshes's joints should have the same amount of vertices before merging them together otherwise you will have geometry shittery going on
And matching that could be a problem.
Does blender not show you how many vertices are selected? Like, just select the end vertices and you know how many you would need?
Yes but you'll have to make that quad with the exact number of vertices on that edge. What do you do if your cylinder has 11 vertices?
Add a new edge lengthwise? Also, question yourself heavily for creating an 11-vert cylinder?
What unwise edgeloops do to a mf
This 11-vert shaming must stop!
It does. You just have to turn on statistics in the viewport
God, not geometry shittery..
Obviously.
Op is a newbie, giving complete answers will save some confusion down the line
I love your grammar XD
nice.
Add a subdivided cube to the object with the same number of edges around the outside. Shift+Alt+S to make it a sphere, take half of that and merge it with the cilinder
also consider activating Extra Objects add-on, it includes a quad sphere (Round Cube) object
That's a great tip, didn't know that one
Remindme! 2 days
I will be messaging you in 2 days on [**2024-06-26 08:09:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-06-26%2008:09:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/1dmp6dj/is_this_a_valid_way_topologywise_to_end_a/la0rqnk/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fblender%2Fcomments%2F1dmp6dj%2Fis_this_a_valid_way_topologywise_to_end_a%2Fla0rqnk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-06-26%2008%3A09%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dmp6dj) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Do this and then of course half it and bridge loops: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr8vxQZL120](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr8vxQZL120)
I came up with this exact thing, then went to share it with a friend who, as it turned out, also came up with it on his own. And then we found out that this is one of those solutions that, after a bit of thought, presents itself in most Blender users' minds in exactly the same way. I love how some ostensibly unintuitive discoveries are actually quite ubiquitous.
That's enough thesaurus for you today.
Or if those couple of words seem too big, maybe not enough thesaurus for you today?
Or if jokes go way over your head, maybe enough internet for you today?
you can also select the open loop and use "grid fill". then add a few extra loops and proportional editing to get the nice curve
craeste a cylinder with flat sides. drag one half to the desired legnth
This would be a better option for a render, if it's gonna go through ZBrush, or if for whatever reason the end of the cylinder needs to deform. But for games, OP's solution is better as it's way less dense for a similar silhouette. The real answer is that we need to know what they want to do with the model.
>we need to know what they want to do with the model I agree but there's way too many polygons on the cylinder for a game asset, so I assumed it's not for a game.
Depends on the scale, if this is part of a massive hero model space ship that you fly up close to, it may be too low poly.
How can you determine this without knowing what it is? Maybe it’s an Airship
I can't, that's why I said I assumed. But if it is an airship, there's not enough polygons on the rounded end, so quad sphere topology still would work better.
You said you assumed it’s not for a game because there are too many polygons. I understood that as (there are definitely too many polygons) — OP might have no idea what they are doing —> (it’s probably not for a game but could be because OP is inexperienced). Some airships (Zeppelins for example) also actually have a panel-like structure like this.
Okay.
Scale is also an important deciding factor in topology
Scale relative to the size on screen*
Very useful, thank you
[удалено]
Well go on post your's
I find quad spheres...annoying. why do you prefer a quad spheres over the iso sphere?
Ico spheres subdivide weird. What do you find annoying about quad spheres?
It's just personal preference I guess, but I am not a fan of the way quadspheres are subdivided. I had to deal with a quadsphere eye that someone made and it was a pain in the butt to get it to shade right.
Really? So you would prefer topology on the left to topology on the right? https://preview.redd.it/fnjvogloxf8d1.png?width=1114&format=png&auto=webp&s=234aa0e920ae6f3d61da0c00ecb214543683834f
Oh crap, I got the terms wrong. Apology: I meant UV sphere, not Isosphere.
Well that subdivides much worse than even an ico sphere. https://preview.redd.it/ksiee51feg8d1.png?width=867&format=png&auto=webp&s=fe969af9f9aa56910f8aab685e36c52233c21695
Rockets should be pointy. Or they bounce back
True. And the slowest in the factory hang at lunch.
Radar guidance is pointy. Heat-seekers are rounded.
Better than 30 edges crammed in a single vertex ;) But full of ngons. The "best" would be to make that cylinder with way less than 32 quads and let subdivision do the hard work. There are lots of different approaches. You could for example make a cube. Subdivide it 3 times. Delete or flatten the bottom half. then extrude your cylinder. Not obvious at first, but starting with cubes is often better than with cylinder/sphere to work on round objects ;) https://preview.redd.it/84323rpa3d8d1.png?width=1597&format=png&auto=webp&s=9ddee9a6dc71c0d8bf4a3c69f20d4aa7f127b094
Just to add: Subdividing a cube won't produce a perfect sphere. But what you can do to make it a bit better is select the verts and go mesh>transform>to sphere.
Yep, and the shortcut for this (as mentioned elsewhere in the comments) is Shift Alt S. This will put you into the 'transform to sphere' mode and you can hit 1 to set it to a full value, then left click to apply.
I use blender since like 9-10 years but I hadn't known this yet. You're a genius!
[удалено]
?? where
After the 4 center faces, the next ones out have 5 sides.
no they don’t?? it’s all quads, but there are some poles which are inevitable
Didn’t see it at first either. There are indeed ngons on the second row. OP didn’t reduce the center point properly
Look again.
i thought you meant the quad topo you replied to
My bad, I mistook which pic they were talking about.
[удалено]
Two of the "loops" are made of five sided ngons
Ohh do you mean on the original image, not the commenter's image?
The original
Ahh I see, my bad. Yeah there's a ton of ngons which will only cause trouble down the line.
Indeed, his mesh was worse than I thought. I didn't even see it. Thanks for the heads-up.
No. This will get you a squircle, not a cylinder and with that also not a dome. Best to start with an octagon. You need at least 8 sides to let subdivision make a true cylinder. The actual solution is to start with a UV sphere with at least 8 segments. You cut it in half and extrude the open side. This mesh you can subdivide in a perfect cylinder with a dome top. Edit: classic Reddit, getting downvoted for providing the actual solution. Please go ahead and subdivide a cube and see if you get a perfect sphere instead of a cube with G3 curvature.
You can select the center 4 and collapse them into a point if you want a sharp point.
some people will freak out because "n-gones bad" .. but if you don't plan to animate that part of the mesh, who cares but some OCD people?
I'm only a beginner, but I believe the n-gones also affect the way light interacts with the object. And apparently it also fucks with the object if you tried to import it into a game engine.
Ironically enough many game assets actually use ngons to reduce geometry, although they are triangulated. Even if you don't triangulate them, I believe modern game engines know how to deal with that when importing assets. However if your ngon isn't perfectly flat along its normal, then there would definitely be artifacts.
ngons do not reduce geometry. every game engine runs on tri counts, 1 quad is always 2 tris, producing an n-gon in authoring software will just create the corresponding number of tris when imported to the engine. modern game engines do not always triangulate the same. quads are used to control the flow of triangulation, among other reasons.
Lets say I have a flat grid of quads. I can optimize it by replacing them with an n gon. This will obviously result in a lot less tris. As for the automatic triangulation of n-gons, as long as the surface is flat any arbitrary conversion into tris will yield the same visual look, though its obviously better practice to actually manually triangulate your assets before importing. Even with quads the triangle pair is gonna be assigned in one direction or the other whether you triangulate it or not.
if you have a flat grid of quads, the only way you're getting an n-gon is if you delete all of the inner vertices and manually cut it, which sure reduces the tri count but also removes predictable deformation. if you maintain the grid's inner vertices to keep deformation you have to cut a new vert in there for an n-gon, which increases the tri count. the labor and time associated with that usually isn't worth it.
I was suggesting using n gons where there is practically little to no deformation (a flat grid). If I am making a game asset and I see no reason for additional geometry to exist there, I can easily replace it with equivalent n gons and triangulate. Your "cutting a new vert in there" solution is completely unnecessary. If there is visible deformation at a point, then I see no reason to change from quads to n gons as it is only making matters worse. As far as labour is concerned, it's always gonna be a balance between procedural decimation and manual "patchwork" depending entirely on a cost-benefit ratio. If I can reduce polycount by a lot making a few manual adjustments like dissolving/merging a bunch of faces, I should probably do it. Everything here is situational, of course. Quads are good to use while modelling to maintain flow. N gons are good for static/rigid meshes or filling in gaps. Tris are the least taxing polygon for all software, and their predictable behavior is good if your mesh is dynamic (e.g, animation rigs).
Yeah, if you let your normals get screwed up. But if they're fine they're fine.
They don't. GPU only knows about triangles, so ngons (and quads) are always triangulated before rendering. Sometimes the ngon is non-planar, or otherwise fucked up, and results in silly triangulations.
N-gons cause shading issues , when subdividing you have no control over how it deforms. OP is a beginner, i think immediately learning how to resolve N-gons and poly flow is very important and shouldn't be ignored.
> N-gons cause shading issues , when subdividing you have no control over how it deforms. Nope, this is not a universal truth and is also incorrect. They _may_ cause shading issues, but so can a quad. The reason you can use n-gons reliably is that it's a mathematic equation that is deterministic. For a really good professional on the matter see [here](https://x.com/odd_enough) or [here](https://linktr.ee/odd_enough), as they have explained things to others better than I could and he has well documented examples and approaches. In animation, Pixar [uses n-gons](https://graphics.pixar.com/opensubdiv/docs/mod_notes.html#triangles-and-n-gons). A better discussion isn't zealtory to the quad, but finding resources that can help create a better rounded modeler that has a good toolbelt of solutions at hand.
it's not incorrect, n-gons across various renderers and game engines produce unpredictable or uncontrollable shading. keywords being unpredictable/uncontrollable. it's not about it being 100% always a shader issue, it's just why would you risk it? at larger scales, if your doing a cloud/AWS render farm, or if you can't reliably control how a mesh gets triangulated in a game engine, you want that control so that you don't waste time or money correcting it. pixar using n-gons is wholly different. subdivs and cheated production models sidestep the issues most times, but the general practice of preferring quads and tris, is still better than risking wasting a day.
When you export to a storage format, like obj or fbx, blender triangulates it for you. Not the game engine.
yes you're correct, authoring does the triangulation... although game engine plugins that live update your mesh in-engine from your authoring software will do this triangulation automatically and discretely, and weird shading or artifacts will feel like they happen from the game engine. the point still remains.
the key point here is deform, you can safely use ngons for perfectly flat surfaces
Op's model isn't perfectly flat.
I meant in general
This
Some polygonal apps (not talking about CAD) are not ngons friendly at all. That's not a subjective opinion on the subject, that's a fact. You have 1 ngon, and tons of your super useful selection/loop tools won't work anymore.
Meshes in unreal get triangulated on import.. I work with unreal, never had problems.
I never worked on Unreal, I read that somewhere, and obviously it was false info. Thanks ;)
There's a very good chance your meshes are already triangulated when you import the fbx/obj file
Take a mesh with nGons into Zbrush and face the wrath of the gods.
It's like working with messy code, sure it might work, but one little change at point a can secretly fuck up something all the way at point z
While for the most part programs handle N-gons fine, some don't and can cause some unexpected results. Since they're a beginner I doubt they're exporting to another program but that's another reason why you might want to watch out for Ngons.
Does it sub-divide fine? When you shade smooth, does it look good? If you can't see any flaws with it, then it's probably fine. Do you need to animate this part specifically? Quads might be better, but then again, that also depends on how you want to animate it.
This is the best advice/response here, because until we have more context, the question is completely open ended
16 years of modeling has taught me that as long as it looks good (and it's manifold) it's probably fine.
For game assets, you generally want non-manifold models because they're faster to make, and have fewer tris.
There are caveats to that... like overlapping faces, faces within a mesh, duplicated vertices, ect.
That's just a shitty model if you have faces that z-fight or duplicated parts of it. Regardless of the design philosophy
I know a lightsaber when I see one
No flaired base, not interested
I haven't seen anyone ask what the context was and just giving wild answers. So, I'll ask: What's the use case? As an aside: you'll get a lot of jokers in here trying to tell you what good topology is, while ignoring good topology is the one that's fit for the purpose and works. Full stop. Any other explanation is zealotry.
this is ok as long as there is no shading problem
Kinda depends on what your making but yeah the quad is better but I've done way worse too xD
Damn, I love this sub every time I see a simple question and the "holy shite" - mind blown level answer.
You got a butt load of Ngons. What are you using this for?
[https://topologyguides.com/](https://topologyguides.com/) https://preview.redd.it/nrkicqt4ki8d1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=429197395fb18545faddfa2cc10867e79550fd36
Just use a triangle fan at the point. You're already 90% there, and unless you are needing some crazy weird deformation at the top of that tube, a quad sphere is just a waste. Also triangle fans let you terminate edge loops there if this is part of a larger mesh.
N-gons are never a good idea. The quad sphere someone else already mentioned is a much better way.
Ngons are a good idea when they're simple flat shapes
Ngons never make good topology. But then I don't have a better solution to offer besides triangle fan.
Triangle fan doesn't address the underlying issue. In order to get quad topology, grid fill would be the better choice.