Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

zbrush 4.4


 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Reputable Contributor

It is no longer "The Industry" which sustains Adobe Photoshop as a viable product. Just go to any Barnes & Noble Bookstore, go to the "Computer" section and look at the number of Photoshop books which are on the shelf - which cater to the consumer marketplace. And those shelves have been stocked this way for about 10 to 12 years.

Industry professionals are not responsible for the proliferation of Photoshop sales. Photoshop has become ubiquitous because of its extremely large, non-professional user base.

Adobe realizes this trend, which has not influenced all of their software suite with the same success - but has begun to act upon this singular realization by "popularizing" its entire software suite - once the domain of the professional - with the introduction of the monthly subscription. $49.95 per month gets you all of their intellectual property. To use, at least.

This is an act which will influence the entire CG software industry.

If Adobe is going this way, and Apple is going this way (Apple Motion for $99 and Final Cut Pro for $299 - and all of the other consumer priced items in the AppStore) - you can bet nearly everyone will be going this way.

Greg Smith

Greg, Adobe is where it is, not because of non-professionals using it...still costs too much for that. It's because it is the defacto standard for so MANY industries. Photography alone could keep it on top. Graphic Design, all 3D related fields, including Compositing and Video Editing. Sign Shops, Ad agencies, you name it...they have a foothold in some major industries. Doesn't have jack to do with non-professionals.

Apple has ticked off a lot of Final Cut users in their approach. Especially considering it had the lions share of the video editing market, in it's segment, and they are upsetting the Apple...Cart (pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a direct parallel to what we are now witnessing in the CG software marketplace - you only have to look in the direction of the Music Production software marketplace.

Once the domain of the professional musician - now the playground of every 14 year old with a laptop. Just ask those software manufacturers what has happened to their professionally driven marketplace. (Logic Pro - $199).

Now that "music" production has become so "friendly" to the swelling masses of aspiring stars, it only makes sense to design software that they want and can afford.

Now that creating "3D art" has become so "friendly" to the swelling masses of aspiring CG stars, it should also make sense to design software that they thirst for and have the money to buy.

And, what they cannot buy, they will simply pirate.

Greg Smith

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

@ Greg Smith.

I did not mean that the industry drives the market totally today but they got integrated first, became well know. That is a fact. Ever one has heard of Photoshop and in a lot of cases will think about buying Photoshop first. Though they might buy something else in the end. TwistedBrush does not have that market brand awareness that Photoshop has.

Zbrush is similar to Photoshop in that regards.

@ AbnRanger,

Agreed very much with having a bug hunting, squashing additional programmer added to Andrew's staff. :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZBrush was definitely, from the beginning, not aimed at the Industry Professional. It was aimed and priced for the consumer CG market. Way ahead of its time, in this regard.

Photoshop began as a reasonably priced "semi-professional" tool (even I could afford it back then) which did gain ground as the industry standard - for two reasons: for three, three reasons:

1) Simplicity and directness of use for artists and photographers

2) It was available on the Mac - designed for the Mac - the domain of artists, and the domain of simplicity.

3) No competing product emerged in the marketplace with these attractions.

More than anything, the success of Apple drove the success of Photoshop and made it universally used and accepted.

Greg Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Actually, Andrew could eventually and feasibly offer 3 different versions.

1) 3DC Paint (Paint, Tweak, UV, Retopo rooms) $149

2) 3DC Sculpt (Voxel and Retopo Rooms) $149

3) 3DC Complete (Xtreme, Ultimate, Pro...whichever) $349

Now, the reason why the full app would still be a bit more than the two combined would be Voxel Paint and Rendering capability, on top of everything being integrated. Just some ideas to appeal to the consumer and tablet users, as well as making it more affordable for ZB and MB users to get just the tools they may want to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this would be a better direction than continuing along the path of the "Swiss Army Knife UBER CG Software".

For one thing, maintaining such a beast is prohibitive to the single genius, working alone. And time, alone, will prove this true.

And, it opens up the market for industry specialists at a very reasonable price, while also paving the way for the mighty "Tablet" of the future - with its corresponding and swelling ranks of consumer-creators.

I'm afraid there will be no viable way to keep 3DC expanding and bursting with features, while at the same time making it stable and affordable.

Greg Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, since we're journeying back to the ancient times when PhotoShop was young and "The Industry" was virtually non-existent, (PhotoShop did not even work with greyscale images, at the time, only dithered monochrome pixels) - nobody was an "Industry Professional". There were no schools, no degrees and no market for "CG Graphics".

PhotoShop was designed to work on the simplest of machines, the Mac Plus - which had only 2 "colors" (Black & White). It wasn't really even for photo processing, but really was initiated to help the Mac print out "newsprint" graphics for the newly developing market - Desktop Publishing.

Back then, "The Industry" was anybody who could afford to rent time on a Mac Plus at Kinko's Copies in Berkeley (I lived there) - and eventually, you could rent time all over the place. We didn't know anything - we learned it by the seat of our pants.

In a way, reminiscent of those times gone by, technology has advanced to the point where the most advanced tools (relatively speaking) of the day are available to be used by ordinary people without formal education - and be used to produce content which rivals what "The Industry" is able to produce. Just like we were able - in the days of old - to produce printed pages that rivaled those of many "Industry" B & W publications. As a result, many new publications and publishing firms were launched, composed of those who were not part of "The Industry", and who could do what they did faster and for less money.

It was the time of "The Little Guy".

Its that time, again.

Greg Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for a historic reference regarding the original intent of "3D-Brush":

http://www.3d-brush.com/

This app made total sense in the scope for which it was designed. It was fast and simple and economical. It did things in a unique and special way. It had its own niche.

It was practical for one (gifted) man to maintain as it was.

Now, 3D-Coat is a much more complex application - a much more ambitious application - walking into areas and markets dominated by others more powerful than itself. And, it seems to be aspiring to walk even further.

What to do?

Some suggest that the app basically return to its roots of being a niche product. This cannot be done by keeping it as it is - one behemoth of an application, whose closest competitor is ZBrush. I simply speak the truth.

But, its present conglomerate self could theoretically be converted into at least 2 powerful, economical, simple niche products:

1) 3D-Brush (if you like) - with all of the advanced features that have been added since then.

2) 3D-Sculpt (better names are available) - featuring true voxel sculpting, dynamic polygonal model creation and automatic retopology (with manual additions).

Just a thought.

Greg Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I strongly disagree with the segmentation of the app. It's Andrews choice, but maintaining 3 trunks at once, ahah he barely keeps up with bugfixing/feature addition on ONE !

Btw if more people were to be hired at pilgway having 3 apps to work on, not a good idea imo. In the end most of work will be focused on the full version (quickest) and then split into smaller chunks but with the code limitation to each version.

I don't know how 3dcoat is build but that doesn't sound like fun coding to me.

Well, I agree it would be more than one man could handle, for sure, but I don't know that it would require different coding. What you would have is essentially the same parts as the main app, but with certain rooms removed/disabled.

So bugs found and fixed in any of the different versions, would simply be copied into the full app. and vice versa. Same with features. That's pretty much what you have with Cinema 4D...all the same code. Just different tools enabled/disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

AbnRanger:

I like your new avatar. It says it all.

Greg Smith

I figured you or Javis would say something to that effect. Was just trying to have a little fun with it. Fighting with app., sometimes makes one feel that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compare the same consumer products we analyze the competitive advantages:

Is 3DC High/mid or low end user ?

Have a stable version ready for daily use ?

Is bug-free ?

How the tools works compared to other solutions ?

It is well documented ?

Has additional advantages that competition does not have?

The workflow is understandable ?

The GUI is well organized ?

How is the update frequency ?

How is the technical support ?

How is the feedback with the community ?

Take the development the users needs ?

How is the policy of marketing and advertising ?

Have the right price ?

etcetcetc

Software is a tool to be used for different types of users/artists

To know they needs allows to design the solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I don't know people... I read a little too much pessimism here. First of all, neither Zbrush or Mudbox is as good for painting as 3d-coat. Mudbox is nice for painting cause its clean and easy, but then lacks some basic features like smudge, has an awful clone tool that basically takes a picture of the whole screen (including the grid) and then "clones" that, the Blur tool is awful too since it makes an awful mess along seams, and of course it can't project along splines, paste and copy parts of the surface, etc. Yet mudbox has a big share of the market, companies like naughty dog or quantic dream buy this 1000 dolar software and mainly for painting, which is really sad to see. This is mainly because of marketing, interface, and good strategy (little features but well presented, easely accesible and very short learning curve). I believe that what makes mudbox a winner is not the software's features themselves, but the fact that when a new guy uses it he gets what he wanted done and without frustrations and without learning the software at all since is so clear, even if it could be done faster with fancy features... This can be improved in 3d-coat... by seeing consumers as the lazy assholes they are. And zbrush doesn't have many painting features, in fact I believe it doesn't even have layers. There is no other program (besides mari maybe, haven't used it), that can adjust the hue, brightness, etc of single layers like photoshop, even sharpen and blur them altoghether. 3d-coat is the best 3d texture painting and editing tool I've found.

So that about painting, then there is sculpting.

Sculpting needs maturity, that's all. I think 3d-coat is going to a very good direction, when liveclay is finished and stable. Then I have to agree that what 3d-coat needs is bugfixing and a better presentation. I think that a good marketing desicion would be to finish liveclay as fast as possible, since is quite probable that zbrush does something like that in the future, and invest as much as possible in marketing that release with videos that show EFFICIENT and EASY workflows, so people can see it's a different take on sculpting, much more DIRECT than zbrush. This is the stronguest point in 3d-coat's sculpting in my opinion, how direct it is, and it has to be exploited. Sculptris has it too, but then you can't achieve the same things that in 3d-coat, and is very easy to get into a mesh that is too problematic to work with. No other software can glue shapes togheter, separate or erase them in REALTIME while you brush, and this has to be exploited from a marketing perspective, that's why I say REALTIME. Zbrush can do anything with dynamesh, but if you put REALTIME with bells and whistles next to it suddenly Zbrush users feel like they don't have something others do, which is good for the program. If a first experience with 3d-coat is good, nicely guided to what the user tries to do, then 3d-coat could grow a lot. The problem is that to have than nice experiencie, you first had to fight with the brushes you thought that did something and did something different, and after lots of frustrations, you find the settings that let you use them. 3d-coat has to make an effort in making things work their best right away, to a point that no added knowledge learned from trial and error is need at all and a new guy can feel empowered by the software right away. Not a software powerful in theory, but in practice. Then, the hidden qualities of brushes and features will only add to the experience and speed as they are discovered by the user.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm totally against separated versions !

Meanwhile, ZB Qremesher/autopo seems to work almost perfectly. I'm deeply impressed. Try it.

This works so good, leading to a new/old workflow. It takes a min to have an almost perfect base cage leading to a multi res Hi definition tool with all the projected details on it.

I was and I still believe, that it's easier to work on a mesh after topology. You skip lot of issues of retopology this way. For instance let's try some drapery. Difficult to retopo it, difficult to swrinkwrap it. Easy to work after retopo though.

To make it more clear, I have a question about 3dcoat.

Is it possible to insert a mesh without voxelization? Yes!

Is it possible to subdivide it (catmul clark) in surface mode? No?

If yes, we have a cage mesh in retopo room, a hi freq subdivided mesh in surface mode, and the new interesting implementation to let topology follow changes if you like.

Do you follow me? An easy way to make 3dcoat competitive to zbrush, without adopting any ideas from Pixologic.

BTW this easily makes sculpt room completely useless. IMO it is. The simpler UI, the less "rooms", the better it is.

It also makes possible to have collateral workflows inside 3dcoat, something that pixologic avoids after buying sculptris. I was waiting to see interesting implementations of dr Peter's work (SC dev) in zbrush, instead we have a good, almost dead and soon forgotten app.

On the other hand, Pixologic has developed this unique render engine all these years. Using 2.5d pixols or something, avoiding OGL, DX, CUDA, GPUs, has the best engine running on cheap machines. This engine may explains the excellent behavior of the brushes as well. An almost perfect displacer, that's what it really is. A powerful app that still runs in 32 bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

I think V4 will be pretty stable....If we pinpoint all "nasty bugs" to Andrew in Mantis,instead of constantly whinning or trying to make 3DCoat a perfect app..I think V4 will be stable enough to be used in a professionnal context.

Im not talking about a complete lack of contradictions,or the most streamlined UI it could have.

Im talking about a lack of crash-generating bugs,artifacts and freezes.

I think we must really help Andrew to hunt those down and leave aside the temptations to suggest modifications to the thousand less dramatic things that annoys us(I,also could spend days and days posting about incoherences and little things(or sometimes big) that annoys me and hinder my workflow).

Once this "no artifacts,no crashes,no freezes" V4 build is out.

We need agressive showcasing....I mean on all fronts,all major forums...showcasing and more showcasing...

It has to be very agressive.just like pixologic did when V3 went out and they dropped on us those 100 sculpting wizards betatesting galleries.

Performance wise i think 3DCoat is ready,....I will show it soon enough.

There is really nothing that can be done ZB or MB sculpting that i cannot do in 3DCoat...but its very hard to undertsand how it works.

LC brushes when tweaked properly can give that "10-15 million per layers" level of details wihtout a single dent in fluidity of brush strokes...Im working on a very old generation 2.6 quadcore.

There is also brush behaviours to do ANYTHING (HardSurface,wrinkles,folds,).Presets are hard to discover.

Sometimes you get good behaviour but performance make it unusable as soon as you reach higher levels.

I found solutions to all this....I will show how to do ANYTHING with just a maximum of 3million polys,

(and that is for very very fine details) just with 500k you can get ZB/MB 2-3 miilion level crispness.

Restoring proxy mode for all visible volumes is FAST...I don't understand how Andrew did it but it takes like 3 times longer restoring 25 objects than restoring one.

So IMO what is only needed to sell licences is: a rock solid V4 release

(by "rock solid" I mean :no crashes,no freeze,no aritfacts in all areas...even if rest is unpolished)

+

Agressive showcasing (LC brushing,subobject management(branching,"through all volumes" option,Posing with lattice,intancing,Proxy mode,PerPixelPainting (new clone tool method),retopo groups,shader baking,vertex painting with layers directly on scan data for 3Dprinting ect....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% Agree with Artman too !!!!! :)

There is really nothing that can be done ZB or MB sculpting that i cannot do in 3DCoat...but its very hard to undertsand how it works.

3DC is a GREAT app, competitive with ZB and far better that Mudbox.

The situation is the same that suffer Blender time ago

What was the problem? Certainly not the price, what really rubbed readers the wrong way was the interface.

Good Interface = Good Framework ;)

3DC_V4 need:

- A GUI CLEANUP -allowing fluid framework with less rooms and unified-

- A Bug free/stable version

thats all my POV

----------------

Material for reading -if any1 like-

http://blogs.computerworld.com/when_open_source_guis_attack_the_blender_example

http://billrey.blogspot.com.ar/2011/10/cleaning-up-blender-ui.html

Note

Like Michalis... I'm totally against separated versions ! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I was and I still believe, that it's easier to work on a mesh after topology. You skip lot of issues of retopology this way. For instance let's try some drapery. Difficult to retopo it, difficult to swrinkwrap it. Easy to work after retopo though.

To make it more clear, I have a question about 3dcoat.

Is it possible to insert a mesh without voxelization? Yes!

Is it possible to subdivide it (catmul clark) in surface mode? No?

If yes, we have a cage mesh in retopo room, a hi freq subdivided mesh in surface mode, and the new interesting implementation to let topology follow changes if you like.

Some ideas about this were posted in this Thread: http://3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9281 , that maybe didn't get enough attention. This is an important thing that would expand the workflow tremendously, making 3d-coat a nicer pipeline tool, since you could sculpt without loosing topology and uvs from an existent model. I love creating things from scratch, but to be honest, it is very very frequent in the industry the usage of preexistent models with goods uvs and topology and then get to something unique, to speed up the workflow. Sometimes these preexistent models can even be rigged already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@DavidF

Right, +1

Let's have a look on a typical zb workflow.

1. Dynamesh with all this boolean functionality-insets etc. Up to 0.5-3 Millions of poly (they improved density -R4)

2. Autoretopo/Qremesher, edit topology (new tools here), reproject original mesh. Resulting to a multires mesh.

3. Subdivide up to 20-40 M poly. Do polyGroups. High frequency sculpting. Vertex painting.

4. UV unwrapping (UVmaster - learn how to use it).

5. Bake all maps as needed, export.

What I don't like on this: The lack of a typical UV editor and the vertex painting method (though it's good enough on a 10-40M mesh)

However, this workflow produces high quality models.

It's a typical workflow that we can't follow in 3dcoat.

I really can't understand why this isn't possible in 3dcoat. All is needed is the ability to merge quad mesh in voxels (surf-mode without voxelizing) and to be able to subdivide it.

There were some promises in the past that all the surface tools could be mirrored in sculpt room (except LC tools of course)

IMO, it isn't a good idea. The only sculpt room should be the vox-surf room. Able to support subdivisions, a reasonable way to bake clean displacements-bumps.

It's very sad that this topic turned to be a conversation on how pixologic adopts 3dcoat ideas. Quite out of topic, if I may say so.

3DCoat is full of fresh ideas/algorithms. Equally or more innovative than zbrush is.

Started as a painter-tool solution in a pipeline. Andrew added all his wonderful ideas, leading to a UI that may be handy for adding code but it doesn't follow the logical workflow.

IMO, 3dcoat suffers from this UI. It isn't a good one. It's a very good one in painting room only. Adopting adobe ideas. 3DCoat should be re-organized from scratch, based on one or two reasonable workflows. Capable to support a multi subs quad mesh in surface mode!

Now, we have a new idea of splitting 3dcoat in two.

One tool for sculpting, a more innovative tool than sculptris or zbrush.

A second one for painting, as 3dcoat supposed to be when development started.

Both can exist as assisting tools for another application only. Let's say blender for keeping costs as low as possible. LOL

A very bad idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

What is so convoluted about importing the low poly model, one creates in a standard 3D App., into both the Retopo and Voxel Rooms....just using it as the retopo mesh? That doesn't require several minute of calculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

What is so convoluted about importing the low poly model, one creates in a standard 3D App., into both the Retopo and Voxel Rooms....just using it as the retopo mesh? That doesn't require several minute of calculations.

yeah but what if in the voxel room you decided to change the face proportions tremendously, and sculpt the ear a lot to find different shapes (not only by moving around and posing, which works in both retopo and voxel rooms), taking into account how delicate the ears topology is, you would then have to adapt manually the retopo mesh into the new voxel mesh cause just snapping it would make a mess.

Besides, what michalis says is that this subdivision adaptation works great on some cases, and can even be more useful than voxel-retopology workflow, depending on the case, and it would be useful to have the chance to do it that way. On the other hand, subdivision baked displacement maps are much more trustworthy than raytraced ones, at least that is what happens in mudbox. I agree with michalis in that is generally easier to work over a mesh with good topology already, but the downside of that is that you can't skecth and design a character without having anything in mind, which is in my opinion one of the things 3d-coat shines at... and also, another downside of subdivision sculpting is that you can come short of polygons if you want to add, for example, a horn in the head, and you may get to insane cuantities of memory usage, and that horn may have troubles with higher subdivision levels if it's added by booleans (I don't know very well how boleans work over meshes with subdiv levels in zbrush though). Even with this downsides, there are many upsides that have been posted along this thread, and it would be more than helpful to have the chance of doing it the subdivision way, like when the mesh has many folds and tiny holes that is a nightmare to retopology and bake maps with raytracing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Abn

Try to understand what I'm talking about. Please.

Can you not record a video showing what you mean? Most of the time, I can only understand a portion of your posts. Some of it is the language barrier, and others is because you keep comparing things in 3D Coat to other apps that many here do not use, and therefore do not see the correlation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It's not the language barrier Abn.

I don't compare 3dc with other apps. The workflow I tried to describe is the most reasonable one. This leads directly to a clean UI.

What are 3d sculpting apps really? They are displacers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

It's not the language barrier Abn.

I don't compare 3dc with other apps. The workflow I tried to describe is the most reasonable one. This leads directly to a clean UI.

What are 3d sculpting apps really? They are displacers.

So basically what you are saying is to enable 3D Coat to convert the current triangulated mesh in Surface mode, to essentially to using "dense quads" mesh (same kind that you can export to). Then once the sculpt is finished, run a reprojection routine, to give you the basis for a Retopo mesh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Basically I would like to work on a multi subdivided mesh and avoid all the trouble of shrinkwrapping methods as possible.

Displacement maps of great quality!

Drapery! Make clothes thinner, after retopo, avoiding shrinkwrapping once again.

Sharpen details after retopo and subdivisions.

yeah, work in 3dc as usual, retopo, subdivide and project the vox mesh. Now we should have a multi resolution mesh, we should be able to sculpt on it. As zbrush does, as MB does, as blender does. This is the nature of 3d sculpting apps, they basically are displacers. The target should be a multi res poly mesh, ready for rigging in the lower subdivision, rendered in the higher sub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

michalis, how bad is the painting room to create displaced mesh to be rigged and rendered somewhere else? I really only use voxels for bases and do detailing and displacements in paintroom. What is the limitation in paintroom for you?

What i found with 3dcoat is the layer system in the painting room offers similar workflow as multi res subd in zbrush.

I do see the new autoretopo in zbrush being very useful. Is it additive to existing sculpts? Do you lose all work from previous sculpt like 3dcoat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@geo_n

It isn't bad at all, actually it works in PPP too. Painted bumps can be exported as displacements.

But it works better under MV mode. It looks like sculpting-real displacement.

The problem is that painting tools are not sculpting tools. Good for pores or such alpha brushes only. For instance, can you make a cloth/drapery thinner?

IMO, there is some inconsistency on the UI here. Why should I paint these bumps in the paint room when I can do better in a sculpt multi subd room? Avoiding shrink wrapping that needed for real sculpting tools and not just painted bumps?

Why should I have a paintroom separated from sculpting room? Why not just changing the mode of the tools-brushes, asking for color or depth behavior? Like it is in paint room now.

Such UI may looks like an influence of zbrush. I don't mind at all. As I mentioned a UI is not just icons and panels, it reflects possible workflows. I admit it, I like the ZB UI. It's effective. In most cases it makes sense. (After you win the fist 3-4 parts of this ZB VG and gain some lives-weapons LOL LOL)

About autoretopo in zb (QRemesher)

You have to duplicate the mesh before entering Qremesher, so to reproject after.

There's a second option, when the mesh is multi subd already. Store higher subd, do retopo, restore higher subdivisions. It's the same reprojection actually, just more automated.

If you watch the new video tuts, most artists prefer to duplicate the mesh first.

Qremesher will produce separated meshes if these meshes have been merged without dynamesh. Avoiding to have a mess of geometry. Good, clever.

Qremesher isn't that good on sharp hard surfacing geometry though. Loop guides don't help at all in this case. 3dcoat autopo works better on such meshes.

Talking about zb adopting ideas from other software around.

These's a new insert mesh functionality. Very clever, it can merge open meshes with parts of other geometry (funny, glorious UI here)

IMO it seems like Pixo adopted something from meshmixer in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The problem is that painting tools are not sculpting tools. Good for pores or such alpha brushes only. For instance, can you make a cloth/drapery thinner?

Do you have a screenshot? Why not do the modification of cloth/drapery in the 3d app where you rig and render?

I'm thinking this could be done better with a cloth simulation and then poly editing.

That insert mesh in zbrush, does it produce triangles when connecting unequal number of polys on either object? I don't really rely on automatic bridge type operations as it tends to make messy mesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...