Calabi

I thought it might be an idea to have a thread where people can post auto retopologys they've done to kind of show it off, and give tips, try and uncover the mysterys of it. It might help develop it and advertise it. I know I could not manually get retopo as good as this(I'm liking it alot). Got it through increasing the density around the eyes/nose area and guiding the edgeflow around that area. I did have to move the edges by the nose, they were a bit further back(perhaps thats a bit too thin, angle to great?).

@dirtbot, Yeah I found that out, stupid me, ignore that post.

Not sure if this is on topic sorry if not, but the add/split command in the retopo room for me I cant split anymore with it. It just snaps to verts. I dont know if its a setting or something, if it is I cannot find it. edit: Also the points and faces tool, cant add faces, I can manipulate the points but not add the faces.

Voxels dont work with open meshes. Voxels are a solid they need a solid closed mesh to fill. It can auto close the holes but I'm sure that could never be entirely perfect. I merged that mesh into voxels closed it and it worked fine with quadrangulation, proflooney.

This guy may disagree with you. http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6244&pid=47672&st=0entry47672

To be honest I dont think 3dCoat needs any more developers, have you seen Andrews speed compared to other developers? It takes them months sometimes to implement the most simplest of things. He knows the code inside and out, teaching someone else to understand it would take alot of time. More people does not neccessarily equate to faster development.

Thanks ghip. I didnt think there'd be any easy way, was just confused with how some of the tools worked, and how other people went about it. I have a severe lack of talent in the artistic side but will do me best. Paint and colour pick, then clone the pattern overlay is that what your saying.

Stupid question but how do you do this in 3DCoat. I know you would use the clone brush, but that wont quite work as the colours arent the same. I want to blend the colours. So I tried the lighten darken brush but that does not seem to work. I just end up with black. So how do people go about fixing seams? Here's the problem.

Wow, and I thought I was joking. Thats awesome even an old actor gets into the biz.

Dick Van Dyke does 3D modelling? I'd like to see some of his work.

I have to say that ear auto retopo looks pretty incredible, not sure how people can moan about this. Its better than the previous method, and very likely more easily and quickly manipulable into a more preferable form than starting from scratch.

I know Zbrush was purposely made to be different you cant fail to notice that. Its arguable whether thats a good or a bad thing. In a way its nice, and refreshing to see a program not conform to the dullness of every other program. Expectations garnered in other programs have to be set aside when using Zbrush which is good because its not not doing anything the same as other programs(pixols and all that). But the menus have the appearance of being disorganised. One of the most important things in a program is being able to find things. 3D art is unfathomable at the best of times. It doesnt appear to follow its own internal logic in some areas. Zbrush now may be perhaps let back by the fact it was the first out the door to do what it did in the way it did. Its long time has resulted in bloat and what were once strengths may have now been reduced to weaknesses. Its got competition, other products doing what it does almost as well, but in a more straightforward manner. There's no denying that Zbrush has lost customers, it may not have otherwise if its ui was improved. There should be more studies about what makes a good ui and why. Blender did one, which was very interesting.

Its menu system may be logical, but its not human logical. Alphabetical menus, within menus, with arbitrary names may seem straightforward and perfect but they arent designed around the human brain and how it catalogues and processes information. They couldnt have done a better job if they wanted to make the menu system unfathomable to people. Its a good program but its processes and methods for doing things are needlessly complicated. To paint you have to click on and find things opposite sides of the screen. To retopo you have follow a series of instructions which make no sense. To do anything apart from the most basic things you have to read a manual, you have to learn and memorise where things are and the arcane proccesses it involves. Nothing you have learned insinctively in all the other native windows programs applys to Zbrush. Its a program apart from every other. You may say thats a good thing but there is a reason windows programs obey certain rules. Ease of access being one. I do not need to learn the different methods for every program. I can without having to read a manual for a new program if it obeys certain rules of windows, learn how to use it pretty quickly(with just perhaps a few hints, I can find new thing see the names click on them and with the knowledge I've gained from other windows programs transfer that to this new program, and have an idea of where this thing I'm wanting might be or what that name might mean). You can attach new information to old information. Why is it so bad that Zbrush doesnt follow the rules of other programs? If we were in the DOS days you would have a hundred different programs all with different rules and menu systems. Can you imagine having to read a manual for each and everyone one of them, if you wanted to do the simplest of things. I garantuee if every program followed their own rules and arbitraryness then we would not have the uptake of software we do today. People would not have the inclination, the time, or patience to learn and use all the ones that they do. People do not like having to learn things. Well they dont like having to be forced to learn boring things. Learning to use an User Interface is boring and a waste of time(that information is not transferable to anything else, brain cells are being wasted just for a program that does things its way, for no other reason than because). They know that. They'd rather be learning how to sculpt or paint or animate, not where to find it and what combination of keys it requires. Blender has realised that, that part of its problem of uptake was its crazy UI. There are no complaints without something to complain about.

I doubt it will change anything much with Zbrush. Perhaps the additions of a few new techs, but not the ui or its general methods. People are stubborn and like things to stay the same if they have seen no need to change anything then it wont ever, unless someone new gets their hands on it. It sounds as if they are going to develop it separately though and perhaps integrate parts with zbrush, and they've bought the software plus the person(they are not trying to bury it), which is a definite sign that some interesting things will happen that otherwise would not. The software on its own could have never competed with all the other sculpting apps. It would have disappeard into the ether.

Bamboos are perfect, thats the one I use.

Its the difference between using your fist and your finger and thumb. Much more precision, and its more confortable over longer times. I'd say its easier to learn and to use a tablet, as(if if you've ever been to school)you will already have been taught. A mouse is illogical and confusing compared to a tablet with one to one mapping.

If it works as well as it appears, you shouldnt need to do any manual retopo on non animatable objects, unless maybe your really fastidious.

Cool stuff, thanks for the vids. Should be helpful to me as I'm looking to get assets into unity eventually.

Thanks guys. I guess I cant get rid of the those pesky polys yet. I only asked because I dont like the uniform clinical shape you get with sub ds. I'm going to have to sculpt it to get it looking more organic anyway so I figured I'd try in voxels but couldnt figure an accurate way. Otherwise its polgyons, to voxels then back to polygons again, no matter.

Not sure if this is the right place to put this. I'm wondering if its possible to model this shape in voxels, and if possible how?

I'm sure that wasnt there before, many thanks geothefaust.

I dont mean for 3DCoat to emulate Sculptris literally. I'm talking about its design ethos, and the direction it went relative to everyone else. All others were screaming "Polygons we need more polygons!". Sculptris proved them wrong it does the same job with way less resources , and it has a more fluid and flexible workflow. It took a problem and solved it contrary to what everyone else was saying, the others didnt even know there was a problem till this guy came along.

Sorry if this isnt the place, but how do I download those images Michalis has placed. I want to use them as refs but cant, no function or blocked.

Its not really a request thought its just an obvious observation. I would hope for 3D Coat goes down the Sculptris route. Instead of the impossible Zbrush brute force approach(voxels cannot behave like pixols). Look for innovative ways around the performance deficiences.

Memory on graphics cards is only really relevant for high res textures. The performance difference with higher memory graphics cards in tests is usually negligable or non existant. Voxels I believe use system ram. I would say get an equivalent(same priced) radeon but I'd likely get shouted down for that.