Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
LJB

Leigh's Sketchbook

Recommended Posts

Bad News I dropped the portable HDD that contained the sculpt whilst on the way to the office, it broke so I will have to start again with this fellow. I beleive I have an earlier revision backup on my home system. Argh, oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your work a lot!Keep posting stuff! :)

You seem also very open minded ,I think you'll get the most of the soft as it grows with this attitude.

On my side ,the problem about performance is mainly for large (and even medium) brush sizes.

With small brushes it is very fast even at very high resolution.

Going up and down in resolution is not essential for me but, being able to use the move brush with large brushes would be satisfying enough for my workflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad you lost some of your work. Very nice model though!

Going up and down in resolution is not essential for me but, being able to use the move brush with large brushes would be satisfying enough for my workflow.

agree. Maybe a low poly mesh that acts as a transform mesh to adjust overall shape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though let me voice my thoughts here on this front, Now in poly sculpting it does make sense to keep resolution low as form bulding is easier, but where topology is no longer a constraining issue, maybe a different appoach is required with this new tech. In Z-Brush for instance many of the brushes change drastically dependant on the resolution of the mesh being worked, for instance there is no real use for sculpting brushes at lowest levels, with predominent workflows using move rake and standard to build form. My way of thinking is resolution of voxels is really only there to aid performance, if Andrew can further optimise performance at higher resolution I no longer see a need to keep things low for roughing out shape. I have longed for a digital medium that closer mimicked natural material so i find voxels interesting for that reason. so I feel the stepping up and down levels may be a thing of the past in the future (Currently though agreed performance is the issue. So maybe in that respect if Voxel leveling (forward and back) proves technically impossible optimisation of higher level performance should be more a priority?

With the increase in voxel levels practially all the brushes behave more predictably so making a higher level in my opinion more comfortable to work in. but I reiterate that performance is the main issue for me, currently.

I am so happy to read this. I have been thinking along the exact same lines and thought i was alone.

This is one of the reasons i have been pushing for a fully functional voxel toolset. Regretfully, even after V3's official release, we still have to miss a flatten, a good working pinch, a clay like brush thats actually smooth (surface rapid brush is reasonably good but its a surface brush) and masking. This is also the exact reason i am not a fan of the hybrid surface > voxel brushes. The method has its uses in specific instances. The move brush is an example (which turned out to not be doable in pure voxels) But its a terrible loss of quality on sculpting brushes compared to their pure voxel relatives. In general the feeling of voxel brushes are much more fluent then their mesh based counterparts. The only thing holding them back is the brushes themselves. Poor performance under heavy loads. No brush profile curves. No sampling options. No good brush preset system etc. I totally agree focus should move to optimisation and to the brushes themselves.

Resolution truly is becoming a thing of the past. The entire "for smooth surfaces you have to stay in low subdiv levels" argument stopped applying long ago. With the increase in computing power many people bruteforce their way in high resolutions. People even force their way through topology restraints by subdividing spheres into insanity and sculpting heads from them. A big part of this is the tools. Without tools like clay/claytubes in zb and wax in mb it would be impossible to work in these high resolutions.

Voxels have an inherent advantage on the subject of resolution. They always offer uniform resolution. As ive shown in my voxelprimer this means that its easier to get the shapes you want (and much more intuitive i may add) even at lower resolutions. While performance is important (and multivoxelresolution would help) it will eventually cease to be an issue, but 3dcoat does need awesome tools/brushes. Zbrush's technology may be inherently flawed but the implementation of it is extremely high quality (generally speaking about the brushes themselves). I hope Andrew sees the potential that lies in a pure voxel approach but the fact the voxel toolset isnt even complete makes me wonder sometimes. I hope he views your work and reads your opinion. ;)

If anything should convice Andrew why he should go pure voxels its the second part of the GOZ promotion on zbcentral. It shows features which are, even at this stage, much easier to do in voxels. And the people go absolutely berzerk over it because these options simply werent available before. The market for a mature voxel sculpting package is immense!

Also your welcome and.. sorry to hear you lost your work.

3dioot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so happy to read this. I have been thinking along the exact same lines and thought i was alone.

This is one of the reasons i have been pushing for a fully functional voxel toolset. Regretfully, even after V3's official release, we still have to miss a flatten, a good working pinch, a clay like brush thats actually smooth (surface rapid brush is reasonably good but its a surface brush) and masking. This is also the exact reason i am not a fan of the hybrid surface > voxel brushes. The method has its uses in specific instances. The move brush is an example (which turned out to not be doable in pure voxels) But its a terrible loss of quality on sculpting brushes compared to their pure voxel relatives. In general the feeling of voxel brushes are much more fluent then their mesh based counterparts. The only thing holding them back is the brushes themselves. Poor performance under heavy loads. No brush profile curves. No sampling options. No good brush preset system etc. I totally agree focus should move to optimisation and to the brushes themselves.

Resolution truly is becoming a thing of the past. The entire "for smooth surfaces you have to stay in low subdiv levels" argument stopped applying long ago. With the increase in computing power many people bruteforce their way in high resolutions. People even force their way through topology restraints by subdividing spheres into insanity and sculpting heads from them. A big part of this is the tools. Without tools like clay/claytubes in zb and wax in mb it would be impossible to work in these high resolutions.

Voxels have an inherent advantage on the subject of resolution. They always offer uniform resolution. As ive shown in my voxelprimer this means that its easier to get the shapes you want (and much more intuitive i may add) even at lower resolutions. While performance is important (and multivoxelresolution would help) it will eventually cease to be an issue, but 3dcoat does need awesome tools/brushes. Zbrush's technology may be inherently flawed but the implementation of it is extremely high quality (generally speaking about the brushes themselves). I hope Andrew sees the potential that lies in a pure voxel approach but the fact the voxel toolset isnt even complete makes me wonder sometimes. I hope he views your work and reads your opinion. ;)

If anything should convice Andrew why he should go pure voxels its the second part of the GOZ promotion on zbcentral. It shows features which are, even at this stage, much easier to do in voxels. And the people go absolutely berzerk over it because these options simply werent available before. The market for a mature voxel sculpting package is immense!

Also your welcome and.. sorry to hear you lost your work.

3dioot

Im glad to here you and some others may feel the same way on this. To me its purely the essence of voxel sculpting, no topoloy/more natural sculpting, just get things working better performance wise and your winning.

I thought I'd be bold and stick my neck out again on this, as now having taken the body sculpt as far as i did (I have located a backup on page two where i added the head so i will go back and attck again soon bringing the detail and proportioning back) that a further level or so to the max and Id have easily got to a Zbrush detail level. it was just a process of learning. Now imagine if andrew can optimise so i could take to that level sooner you'de have a very nifty fast solution that would stand up against Zbrush and mudbox a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made a Video of a simple workfolw for blending between different Volumes at late detailing stage to increase voxel level locally its a cheat using the overlap created ta split stage but it works really nicely. Not sure how it will fair when producing a normal map but the increase in resoultion is superb for detailing smaller areas. Sorry but i'm not sure if this has already been touched on I really cant be bothered to search it out through out the whole forum, so bare with me if its old news.

WMV is HERE! it's an approach until we get better performance or Locallised voxel increase working properly.

- leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made a Video of a simple workfolw for blending between different Volumes at late detailing stage to increase voxel level locally its a cheat using the overlap created ta split stage but it works really nicely. Not sure how it will fair when producing a normal map but the increase in resoultion is superb for detailing smaller areas. Sorry but i'm not sure if this has already been touched on I really cant be bothered to search it out through out the whole forum, so bare with me if its old news.

WMV is HERE! it's an approach until we get better performance or Locallised voxel increase working properly.

- leigh

I've seen your video and didn't know this workflow before. But I like it very much. It brings more possibilities for users, who don't have much memory, too. I'am currently working on a 32 bit sytem with 3 GBytes of RAM. Your video shows me a way to have much more flexibility. Thanks for that!

The resolution of your last head begins to be interesting for using it as a normal map in renderings.

Regards from germany

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taros - Thank you, Glad someone found it useful I hoped it might prove so I read many askings for extra increase features I even put in a request for Localised voxel increase myself.

At the moment I, as are some others here on the forum, am struggling with brushes and expected effect to try and see just how far we can push detail in 3D coat. This effort took a while as the brushes are not current suited to fine detail like this, in ZBrush it would have taken minutes but I tire of that workflow, now i have experienced the freedom of voxels. I will continue to bring up the detail only in beginnings at the moment.

I believe more so than resolution its more to do with the stroke and brush behaviour. I work it like this in Zbrush everything get converted to quads at high subdivision and that show the poly count as quads where as we read Voxel in Tri so Double the amount of Tris would be expected for same level of detail. This is 10mil tris so roughly the same resoltion as i would achive with 6 level of SD in ZBrush. I know we can achieve it i feel we are getting closer but its the brushes and stroke that are holding us back more than the resolution. To that end i will request a drag rectangle type brush similar to ZBrush that will give us a better capabillity. Its not only being able to achieve the detail its being able to achieve the detail in a comfortable manner that will garentee a big future for 3D coat.

Thats my two pence on this resolution vs detail subject.

- leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I found stamp and it works similar to Drag rect. I appologies,, But suggest you change the documentation to explain its function better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taros - Thank you, Glad someone found it useful I hoped it might prove so I read many askings for extra increase features I even put in a request for Localised voxel increase myself.

At the moment I, as are some others here on the forum, am struggling with brushes and expected effect to try and see just how far we can push detail in 3D coat. This effort took a while as the brushes are not current suited to fine detail like this, in ZBrush it would have taken minutes but I tire of that workflow, now i have experienced the freedom of voxels. I will continue to bring up the detail only in beginnings at the moment.

I believe more so than resolution its more to do with the stroke and brush behaviour. I work it like this in Zbrush everything get converted to quads at high subdivision and that show the poly count as quads where as we read Voxel in Tri so Double the amount of Tris would be expected for same level of detail. This is 10mil tris so roughly the same resoltion as i would achive with 6 level of SD in ZBrush. I know we can achieve it i feel we are getting closer but its the brushes and stroke that are holding us back more than the resolution. To that end i will request a drag rectangle type brush similar to ZBrush that will give us a better capabillity. Its not only being able to achieve the detail its being able to achieve the detail in a comfortable manner that will garentee a big future for 3D coat.

Thats my two pence on this resolution vs detail subject.

- leigh

- idea removed for rewrite and different approach -

3dioot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now something interesting has happened. What would happen if you would start working in true size? (its not uncommon for this to be demanded for the proper functionality of dynamics systems for example). If you would work in true size you could start linking resolutions to object detail. (this is why i will request a unit system in 3dcoat) You could say that, for truesize objects, 1 is a really low resolution. 3 is a medium resolution which allows you to define nice forms. 6 is the resolution that allows you to sculpt extreme surface details like pores (numbers are fictional for now offcourse).

These levels will be true for all objects that you sculpt if you sculpt them lifesize.

I see what you mean, but I don't want to always be thinking in terms of lifelike sizes when sculpting but more like ZBrush where you can slowly go up and down in resolution as needed. For example: If I import an head and I slowly add detail and then increase the resolution and add more detail and then all of a sudden I realize I want to do a major shape change to the head like add horns for example. In zBrush you simply lower the resolution and then sculpt the horns in at the low resolution and then increase the resolution back up very high and continue modeling. Then when you are finished with the sculpt you export a displacement map at the high resolution and then lower the resolution to it's lowest level and export the .obj file out at the lowest resolution. What you are left with is a low poly mesh with a very detailed displacement map, therefore it renders fast due to the fact that it is a very low poly mesh but it still looks incredibly detailed because it has a very detailed displacement map.

This approach has many advantages. Lets say you want to import a mesh object for sculpting. Currently you have to guess at what resolution it is imported. You have to experiment by scaling your mesh up and down in resolution "1" and trying out what fits best with the detail or your mesh. If you try to import on a layer which already had resolution changes (either through scaling or by the use of "increase resolution) its completely random since there is no way to relate the resolution to the root layer.

If you know the size of your object (or estimated size) with this system you can pick the appropriate resolution. If you have a mesh thats finished and highly detailed you will import at level 6 and it will be turned into voxels with all the details preserved. If you have the equivalent of a basecage you would use in zb or mb you would import it at level 1 or 2. Completely predictable results (for the first time in the release of voxel sculpting.

I don't see why you would need to guess what the resolution of the layer is in the first place? If you were in Voxels, then a simple number somewhere could tell you what the current resolution of the object was, but if you imported an object, then why couldn't it be a different resolution if it's already on a separate layer just look at the resolution count (assuming Andrew adds this) and then increase the resolution if you need to.

If Andrew could allow a you to see the resolution somewhere in the UI, then this would help. I don't think there should be a problem with having different resolutions for different objects. For example if you had a warrior with armour, maybe the detail would only be added where the fine sculpting was added. So for example you have a basic armour shape and the back part is smooth so it would be low poly, but the front would automatically be more detailed as finer detail was added with the sculpting brushes. Just an idea but probably too hard to implement. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see what you mean, but I don't want to always be thinking in terms of lifelike sizes when sculpting but more like ZBrush where you can slowly go up and down in resolution as needed.

"As far as i can think it through its still technically impossible to create multivoxelresolution (ive spend hours thinking about it, making notes and sketching things out). I feel its important to accept this. Voxel sculpting brings many, many major advantages. Features that will never be fluently possible with mesh sculpting. But multilevel sculpting is something it simply cannot do."

"There are lots of challenges with this approach. Not the least one will be to make people understand why this would work since its such a deviation from the perspective of a mesh based sculpting."

And the first thing you do is go straight back to saying you want multiresolution just like Zbrush. You are fully entitled to your opinion. I would like multiresolution myself. But its very unlikely to happen. Its time to see what is possible besides multiresolution sculpting. The next big obvious step is resolutionless sculpting. Thats a major challenge but it is doable. That was the intent of this wall of text. To express some idea's on how to achieve this. If all you have to do is sculpt lifesize to gain this then truly, how much of a problem would this be? Id dare say thats a limitation any human can overcome.

As for your example on how easy zbrush works. I think thats well known by most people, including myself. I dare to state however that if you would try to sculpt horns from a basemesh that doesnt support it (like a sphere) you would be in trouble. Both at the high end where you need to subdivide into oblivion and will most likely end up with extreme rectangular polygons and at the low end where you will have a basemesh which is so stretched its hard for the renderer to calculate correct displacement.

I don't see why you would need to guess what the resolution of the layer is in the first place? If you were in Voxels, then a simple number somewhere could tell you what the current resolution of the object was, but if you imported an object, then why couldn't it be a different resolution if it's already on a separate layer just look at the resolution count (assuming Andrew adds this) and then increase the resolution if you need to.

My point was that resolution only means something in relation to size. Really the answer is in the text i wrote.

If Andrew could allow a you to see the resolution somewhere in the UI, then this would help. I don't think there should be a problem with having different resolutions for different objects. For example if you had a warrior with armour, maybe the detail would only be added where the fine sculpting was added. So for example you have a basic armour shape and the back part is smooth so it would be low poly, but the front would automatically be more detailed as finer detail was added with the sculpting brushes. Just an idea but probably too hard to implement. :)

I never said there was a problem to have different resolutions for different objects. As for your suggestions on resolution being dependant on sculpted detail i have given alot of thought to that as well. In my above post i had actually started describing that under the name of "adaptive resolution". There are however big problems with the implementation of that which i found out while i was typing it all out so i removed it. Ill recap them quickly.

The first problem is that of an upper limit. A cube could always be displayed within the resolution a single voxel offers. A sphere would, in theory, require an infinite resolution. The solution came to me while i was typing out my "voxel resolution definition". If you work in truesize you can state that at a certain level you would begin to start sculpting detail which cannot be seen (lets say even finer then pores). This means that you can set your upper limit at that resolution. Nomatter how much detail you add, it will never need a higher resolution then this one. This is a very good reason to introduce a truesize sculpting workflow.

Then there is the problem of at what resolution sculptural changes are made. You only know wether a form can be optimized after it has been formed. Does this mean all brushes should perform at the maximum resolution by default? This would create an unworkable situation. Lets say that gets solved one way or the other. The optimization process would still need to take place. Think of the surface tools in the voxel room for a second. The "only" thing that needs to happen there after each stroke is the conversion from surface to voxel. Yet this gives a noticable feeling of lag after every stroke even on the most powerfull systems. To have an "optimize" routine run after each and every brush stroke would create the same effect.

-----

I still think that the concept of brush resolution (as i guess is done with smooth) is the most promising to increase voxel sculpting performance.

3dioot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"As far as i can think it through its still technically impossible to create multivoxelresolution (ive spend hours thinking about it, making notes and sketching things out). I feel its important to accept this. Voxel sculpting brings many, many major advantages. Features that will never be fluently possible with mesh sculpting. But multilevel sculpting is something it simply cannot do."

"There are lots of challenges with this approach. Not the least one will be to make people understand why this would work since its such a deviation from the perspective of a mesh based sculpting."

And the first thing you do is go straight back to saying you want multiresolution just like Zbrush. You are fully entitled to your opinion. I would like multiresolution myself. But its very unlikely to happen. Its time to see what is possible besides multiresolution sculpting. The next big obvious step is resolutionless sculpting. Thats a major challenge but it is doable. That was the intent of this wall of text. To express some idea's on how to achieve this. If all you have to do is sculpt lifesize to gain this then truly, how much of a problem would this be? Id dare say thats a limitation any human can overcome.

As for your example on how easy zbrush works. I think thats well known by most people, including myself. I dare to state however that if you would try to sculpt horns from a basemesh that doesnt support it (like a sphere) you would be in trouble. Both at the high end where you need to subdivide into oblivion and will most likely end up with extreme rectangular polygons and at the low end where you will have a basemesh which is so stretched its hard for the renderer to calculate correct displacement.

My point was that resolution only means something in relation to size. Really the answer is in the text i wrote.

I never said there was a problem to have different resolutions for different objects. As for your suggestions on resolution being dependant on sculpted detail i have given alot of thought to that as well. In my above post i had actually started describing that under the name of "adaptive resolution". There are however big problems with the implementation of that which i found out while i was typing it all out so i removed it. Ill recap them quickly.

The first problem is that of an upper limit. A cube could always be displayed within the resolution a single voxel offers. A sphere would, in theory, require an infinite resolution. The solution came to me while i was typing out my "voxel resolution definition". If you work in truesize you can state that at a certain level you would begin to start sculpting detail which cannot be seen (lets say even finer then pores). This means that you can set your upper limit at that resolution. Nomatter how much detail you add, it will never need a higher resolution then this one. This is a very good reason to introduce a truesize sculpting workflow.

Then there is the problem of at what resolution sculptural changes are made. You only know wether a form can be optimized after it has been formed. Does this mean all brushes should perform at the maximum resolution by default? This would create an unworkable situation. Lets say that gets solved one way or the other. The optimization process would still need to take place. Think of the surface tools in the voxel room for a second. The "only" thing that needs to happen there after each stroke is the conversion from surface to voxel. Yet this gives a noticable feeling of lag after every stroke even on the most powerfull systems. To have an "optimize" routine run after each and every brush stroke would create the same effect.

-----

I still think that the concept of brush resolution (as i guess is done with smooth) is the most promising to increase voxel sculpting performance.

3dioot

Can Voxel resolution issues be helped by having a base res in the parent volume and higher res in additional volumes? Not having tested this, can you modify the low res volume and see the changes in the 'outer' hires volumes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly an updated detail head -

Closer.jpg

Still not finished but Im getting more comfortable with the detail capabillities. Straated making my own detailing set of pens and will share them with all once complete.

Secondly I Like what you guys are saying some nice ideas batting back and forth.

3Dioot, yes brush/pen independant resolution sounds good. and possible i think, What about something like a brush that could paint, marks voxel area then a slider that could be used to increase density dependant on area masked/selceted?

I kind of take for granted that currently leveling up/down is a impossibillity so I would push both Localised voxel density and Optimisation of large brushes performance. The move brush can work very well at high resoltion areas but the larger it is the worse it gets. Optimise this and like i said before Resolution would not be so important.

- leigh

post-1266-1246839601_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple more updates -

Head_Nearly_Complete_01.jpg

Head_Nearly_Complete_02.jpg

Getting there. One big problem is the Stamp will only function at to a certain size. as you drag too far it dissappears and no stamp is applied.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proportion changes to Nose and Eyes. Nostrils no longer so flared

post-1266-1246901884_thumb.jpg

post-1266-1246901894_thumb.jpg

post-1266-1246902000_thumb.jpg

post-1266-1246902010_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opening up the mouth the advantages of Voxels, Big time!!

post-1266-1246906817_thumb.jpg

post-1266-1246906827_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very fine work. Are you gonna paint it ?

Dunno, I will revist later i think. Doing this other sculpt first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great! I was studying the skull today , making it in layers .

You can change the color of the default material for every seperate layer when you switch to paint room for a second.

That way every layer gets its own color. Nice to see the muscles apart from the bones etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice work Leigh. He has a warm genuine smile which is not easy to achieve in a sculpt. :)

I look forward to your brushes gift as well.

Yes opening the mouth is a beautifull example of where mesh based sculpting would have faltered.

I have an idea on how to fix brush resolution seperate from min and max levels and truesize sculpting. Dont feel like putting another wall of text in your thread though. Perhaps ill save it for the beta thread.

Keep up the great sculpting.

3dioot

PS

Edited for positivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great! I was studying the skull today , making it in layers .

You can change the color of the default material for every seperate layer when you switch to paint room for a second.

That way every layer gets its own color. Nice to see the muscles apart from the bones etc.

Try painting a copy layer of the Jaw also that way you can rotate it open translate it into place and acheive a nice pose. You can find a layered skull and mandible from me HERE!

post-1266-1246909219_thumb.jpg

post-1266-1246909224_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"As far as i can think it through its still technically impossible to create multivoxelresolution (ive spend hours thinking about it, making notes and sketching things out). I feel its important to accept this. Voxel sculpting brings many, many major advantages. Features that will never be fluently possible with mesh sculpting. But multilevel sculpting is something it simply cannot do."

3dioot

You've obviously given this a lot of thought (more than me):) and I think we are on the same page in the end. I just want the ability to sculpt in High detail and also the ability to be able to export a low poly or low resolution object out of 3DCoat to be used in other 3D applications. Without this ability 3DCoat is useless to me.

For example if I were to create an extremely detailed dinosaur, I would want the ability to sculpt that in Voxels and then export that out of 3DC as a low poly mesh to be used in other 3D applications. We agree the voxel sculpt needs to be converted to poly's to be useful in a 3D application so however this was done would not matter to me, but I want to export a low poly mesh out of 3DCoat and not a high poly one as it would be far too cumbersome. Thanks for the banter. :)

leigh, excellent head sculpts. I see you have a lot of talent for sculpting and anatomy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×