Traditional Subdivision Levels

[TheRedWaxPolice]

As seen in most 3D and sculpting software out there...

This seems to be one of the most important things missing in 3Dcoat..

Thx...

[AbnRanger]

On 1/25/2022 at 1:59 AM, TheRedWaxPolice said:

As seen in most 3D and sculpting software out there...

This seems to be one of the most important things missing in 3Dcoat..

Thx...

3DCoat handles the process of stepping down to a lower res version of a model, to do tasks that are calculation intensive, with a different approach. It has to because Voxels and Dynamic Subdivision meshes require it. You also lose Subdivision levels when you use Dynamesh or Sculptris Pro in ZBrush, for much the same reason.

 

[TheRedWaxPolice]

@AbnRanger

Thanks for sharing this video.. But unfortunately this is a very convoluted and complicated way of trying to do the same thing, hence my request...

If the goal of this workflow is to mimic the traditional subdivision levels, then why not do it properly?

[AbnRanger]

56 minutes ago, TheRedWaxPolice said:

@AbnRanger

Thanks for sharing this video.. But unfortunately this is a very convoluted and complicated way of trying to do the same thing, hence my request...

If the goal of this workflow is to mimic the traditional subdivision levels, then why not do it properly?

It's no more convoluted than having to jump through all the hoops one has to in ZBrush, once you use Dynamesh or Sculptris Pro at any point. YOU LOSE YOUR SUBDIVISION LEVELS (and Sculpt Layers) IN ZBRUSH! In 3DCoat, you NEVERE lose it. You can simply step up or down to a lower resolution at any time. The user has a dynamic subdivision mesh and a voxel object, therefore the mesh/object changes it's topology/structure quite often. This is why the traditional SubD method don't work on these dynamic objects. Not in 3DCoat, and not in ZBrush, either.

 

[AbnRanger]

 

3DCoat is far less hassle is it's Proxy approach is more elegant than ZBrush's, in my opinion. Voxels don't care about your polygons (topology) and you never have to worry about topology when working with Voxels, or even in Surface Mode, because every brush has built-in dynamic subdivision. These two are the future of digital sculpting, because they solve problems traditional quad-based, subD sculpting inherently has, and they now offer a refined level of sculpting that matches ZBrush and Mudbox. Andrew is doing things in 3DCoat I never thought was possible...such as being able to use dynamic subdivision or booleans without losing Sculpt Layers, like you do in ZBrush. I never thought Voxel Brushes would be able to rival Surface brushes or offer the performance and nuanced control that Zbrush has...but Andrew is proving me wrong.

Try them out and compare them fairly and objectively with similar brushes in Zbrush + use Proxy Mode to step down to different resolution levels. I think you will really like the workflow. 

[AbnRanger]

....Sorry for a few typos, by the way. 

[TheRedWaxPolice]

2 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

once you use Dynamesh or Sculptris Pro at any point. YOU LOSE YOUR SUBDIVISION LEVELS

Obviously. But that's not the point. The point of using the traditional subdiv levels is to not use any kind of dynamic subdivisions.

Some people might prefer to work with dynamic subdivs all the time, and that's okay... but sometimes all you need is the fast and straight forward workflow of the traditional subdiv levels... and the way 3dcoat tries to achieve that with proxies etc seems a little cumbersome imo... 

But thanks anyways for the answers..

[Metin Seven]

I'm also used to ZBrush multi-level subdivision modeling, but I do have to say that I generally like the freedom of a dynamic workflow more, whether it's through revoxelization (3DC Voxel mode, ZBrush Dynamesh, Blender Voxel Remesh) or dynamic topology (3DC Surface mode, ZBrush Sculptris Pro, Blender Dyntopo).

One of the real advantages of multi-level subdivision modeling is fully maintaining the low-poly UV mapping.

[AbnRanger]

15 hours ago, TheRedWaxPolice said:

Obviously. But that's not the point. The point of using the traditional subdiv levels is to not use any kind of dynamic subdivisions.

Some people might prefer to work with dynamic subdivs all the time, and that's okay... but sometimes all you need is the fast and straight forward workflow of the traditional subdiv levels... and the way 3dcoat tries to achieve that with proxies etc seems a little cumbersome imo... 

But thanks anyways for the answers..

Yes, I understand, but I am just trying to emphasize that 3DCoat's platform is so different, that a traditional SubD level system, isn't practical. Many tools in Surface mode use dynamic subdivision in some way. The Cutoff Tool is one such example. To get super crisp edges along a cut, 3DCoat dynamically subdivides those edges, automatically. The proxy/multi-res workflow works pretty well, so please try to use it a fair bit before making a determination as to its usefulness. As you can see in that one video, it even lets you keep your Sculpt Layer information intact + applies the changes to the Proxy to a new Sculpt Layer. It's a pretty powerful system and not hard to use, once you get used to it.

[AbnRanger]

12 hours ago, Metin Seven said:

I'm also used to ZBrush multi-level subdivision modeling, but I do have to say that I generally like the freedom of a dynamic workflow more, whether it's through revoxelization (3DC Voxel mode, ZBrush Dynamesh, Blender Voxel Remesh) or dynamic topology (3DC Surface mode, ZBrush Sculptris Pro, Blender Dyntopo).

One of the real advantages of multi-level subdivision modeling is fully maintaining the low-poly UV mapping.

Yes, but 3DCoat has a pretty good answer to that. In fact, I am the one who asked Andrew (multiple times) for the feature....CONFORM RETOPO MESH. It used to work only with large scale tools (TRANSFORM, POSE, MOVE), but now can be applied when using any sculpting brush, too. You can import a low poly UV mapped mesh into the Retopo Room and have 3DCoat conform it to your sculpting edits, every step of the way.