Zspheres II

[cuffins]

Look at this:

ZBrush ZSpheres II

That's...yeah...AMAZING.

Rene

[Oliver Thornton]

That is wicked cool, but it's not voxels. What you're seeing is a live connection to the auto-skinned z-sphere based mesh and use of the zspheres for rigging. The live auto-skin connection is new, but I think rigging with zspheres of any model in ZB has been possible for a while thanks to 3rd party ZScripts. Not saying it's not insanely cool though, but it's still a far cry from voxels.

WTF is this ZB 3.5 nonsense though? They were advertising a free upgrade to ZB 4 with their last videos, did it die? Or is there really a need for an intermediary version?

[akira]

Voxels?

To me it's more like the metaball-based muscle system

which has been done for a while in Houdini.

akira.

[cuffins]

That is wicked cool, but it's not voxels. What you're seeing is a live connection to the auto-skinned z-sphere based mesh and use of the zspheres for rigging. The live auto-skin connection is new, but I think rigging with zspheres of any model in ZB has been possible for a while thanks to 3rd party ZScripts. Not saying it's not insanely cool though, but it's still a far cry from voxels.

WTF is this ZB 3.5 nonsense though? They were advertising a free upgrade to ZB 4 with their last videos, did it die? Or is there really a need for an intermediary version?

It depends on your definition of voxels. The name itself is acombination of volume and pixels. So what they implement is kinda volumetric sculpting...call it auto-skin connection or whatever. The process for me is nearly the same as voxel sculpting except the benefit of having a rig underneath and the speed. As you can see in the Video generation of poly mesh out of it seems quite easy. Rigging in ZB was always implemented (without 3rd party scripts) but now they pushing that ZSphere thing consequently forward. 3.5 is a intermediary version. ZB4 will come in Q4 because of implementing new features. All updates are free for registered users. Did you remember the delay of 3.0 release? It was all of Mudbox was coming out, so they decided to implement killer features before releasing. Same now...Pixologic always be aware of the features other applications offer and I'm sure they have an eye on 3DCoat...

Rene

[GED]

WTF is this ZB 3.5 nonsense though? They were advertising a free upgrade to ZB 4 with their last videos, did it die? Or is there really a need for an intermediary version?

they couldnt meet the release date for zb4 so they made up a product which never existed zb3.5 to cover up for their error instead of just saying "sorry we need more time we shouldnt have set a release date" zb3.5 looks like it will include a lot of features though which is surprising -makes me wonder what they are trying to achieve for zb4.

Looks like it could be a little wierd or time consuming to work with zsphere 2. I mean you have to lay down all the foundations in order to move on to the sculpt, in voxels you just sculpt or create new parts when and where you like.

[spacepainter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel

What is a voxel?

Jeez, I like that Zbrush workflow example.

[cuffins]

they couldnt meet the release date for zb4 so they made up a product which never existed zb3.5 to cover up for their error instead of just saying "sorry we need more time we shouldnt have set a release date" zb3.5 looks like it will include a lot of features though which is surprising -makes me wonder what they are trying to achieve for zb4

That's the point. If this is one of the unannounced features, what will come with ZB4? As I said...be aware...

[cuffins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel

What is a voxel?

Jeez, I like that Zbrush workflow example.

"is a volume element, representing a value on a regular grid in three dimensional space" as I said...call it voxel, metaball or ZSphere...same functionality.

[Taros]

You should rename this thread to stop the wrong direction of this discussion. No artist is interested, which technique is used here. Believe me.

The only advantage of the name of this thread is to direct the viewer on it, and that's good.

But more important, than to discuss what a voxel is or not: The new zSpheres brings a really fantastic way of skulpting and controlling models and save a bunch of time.

So please come back to the topic: zSpheres 2 are really cool and makes me nervous...

[cuffins]

You should rename this thread to stop the wrong direction of this discussion. No artist is interested, which technique is used here. Believe me.

The only advantage of the name of this thread is to direct the viewer on it, and that's good.

But more important, than to discuss what a voxel is or not: The new zSpheres brings a really fantastic way of skulpting and controlling models and save a bunch of time.

So please come back to the topic: zSpheres 2 are really cool and makes me nervous...

You're right chris...

[Taros]

I wish I could do something like this in 3D Coat, one day.

[Bo Atkinson]

Very nice video, but i'd say it is more zspheric, not voxel-metric. Artists really work towards mastery of metaphor, (the cortex of communication). Metaphor even befuddles science because all scientific observation is described by use of metaphor. The wave-vs-particle argument of physics. Whereas, the Brahmans eons ago realized that metaphor can risk undesirable illusion. Illusion can become fun, but the contrast of order and chaos are mutually dependent. Indeed an artist need not bother too much, with such technicality, but instead use productive tools to emulate and to mingle imagination and reality.

Zspheres seem much more NURBS like or vector-spline based, as conceptualizing tools. Whereas voxels seem like high res particle builder tools (platonic-polygonal-solids, quad-meshes). Both seem to mingle at some point in processing. So what?

Each produce metaphors for an artist's creation.

Thanks for sharing.

[LJB]

Yes its very impressive i must say. I particularly like the abillity to use the underlying ZSphere base as a deformer. Very smart Maybe Andrew will see this and come up with a a basic level deformer functionallity for voxels.

[LJB]

That's the point. If this is one of the unannounced features, what will come with ZB4? As I said...be aware...

eeerrrrmmm..... Time travel and parrallel rift control surely?

[Taros]

Yes its very impressive i must say. I particularly like the abillity to use the underlying ZSphere base as a deformer. Very smart Maybe Andrew will see this and come up with a a basic level deformer functionallity for voxels.

That's true.

But I think, we need a optimised voxel system first. Where details are not needed, there should be less amount of voxels, if possible. There was a document in the forums here, it describes a system, that is interesting to optimize voxeldisplay, but I don't find it anymore...

[cuffins]

That's true.

But I think, we need a optimised voxel system first. Where details are not needed, there should be less amount of voxels, if possible. There was a document in the forums here, it describes a system, that is interesting to optimize voxeldisplay, but I don't find it anymore...

Maybe it was here:

3dioot's ideas thread

I posted a document describing a Octree data structure to store voxels in different resolutions:

Octree Voxel

Rene

[Taros]

Maybe it was here:

3dioot's ideas thread

I posted a document describing a Octree data structure to store voxels in different resolutions:

Octree Voxel

Rene

Ah yes, this one I mean. You could post it in a PM directly to Andrew, maybe he didn't seen it?

I've found a additional website, that describes the methods too. -> Click me

PS: Your document-link is not working anymore.

[cuffins]

Ah yes, this one I mean. You could post it in a PM directly to Andrew, maybe he didn't seen it?

I've found a additional website, that describes the methods too. -> Click me

PS: Your document-link is not working anymore.

jepp...link is dead...uuuh, hopefully I have stored it at home...

I will write Andrew a PM...

Rene

[kay_Eva]

yes I'd like a feature like this is in 3d coat too =)

"Curves Tool Xtreme"

Basically it's turning the curves-frame composed of Zspheres into a surface that you use to guide your Brush. This is something I think that could make it into 3dCoat.

[Javis]

Actually, I do too... This is something that I think we may see...

[Javis]

Voxels?

To me it's more like the metaball-based muscle system

which has been done for a while in Houdini.

akira.

Exactly right. This is what it reminded me of when I saw it.

[AbnRanger]

jepp...link is dead...uuuh, hopefully I have stored it at home...

I will write Andrew a PM...

Rene

Personally, I think this is the closest they could come to voxels without actually appearing to steal Andrew's idea. Looked like using the "Increase" tool in voxels. Nice tools to have if you a ZBrush user, but I'm not seeing anything that threatens Voxel sculpting.

[Javis]

No definitely nothing to worry about there. It is neat technology, and is a step up from zspheres.

[cuffins]

Personally, I think this is the closest they could come to voxels without actually appearing to steal Andrew's idea. Looked like using the "Increase" tool in voxels. Nice tools to have if you a ZBrush user, but I'm not seeing anything that threatens Voxel sculpting.

I have to correct you...Voxel Sculpting isn't Andrews idea. This kind of sculpting technique is described in around 1990 and implemented for example by Sensable long time before Andrew wrote his soft. There's no need for Pixologic to steal someones ideas (maybe vice versa...). And don't forget, Pixolator, the founder of Pixologic gave his sculpting algorithm to the masses...So this in my oppinion is the right kind of thinking, kind of Open Source...

Rene

[cyartist]

The Zspheres 2 is nice but it is not Voxels and still is limited it is just a muscle volume system

With Voxels I can bring in any model and merge it together and blend it into one solid model or a layered model with mant parts.

One thing I mantion to Andrew a while back is to really build a basic rigging bone system for posing models like this.

http://www.kunzhou.net/publications/MeshPuppetry.wmv

Hopefully he will take my advice so he can stay ahead of the other apps.

[cuffins]

The Zspheres 2 is nice but it is not Voxels and still is limited it is just a muscle volume system

With Voxels I can bring in any model and merge it together and blend it into one solid model or a layered model with mant parts.

One thing I mantion to Andrew a while back is to really build a basic rigging bone system for posing models like this.

http://www.kunzhou.net/2008/skinning.avi

Hopefully he will take my advice so he can stay ahead of the other apps.

Yeah you're right...the possibility of merging Volumes together in Voxel Sculpting is great!

But ZB Coders have announced the merging of Subtools with welding for next ZB release which is nearly the same. And no I think Zsphere 2 is not only a muscle volume system but a muscle volume system to build AND deform meshes upon like Zspheres already do. If you familiar with ZB you know you can create an "Adaptive skin" with Zspheres and then after extracting it you can use your Zspheres as a rig for this mesh. That's exactly what the new Zspheres will do but much much better.

Don't think it is my intension to hype ZB no! But it is a great app and 3DC too! The advantage of ZB is speed and functionality because they're in the market of sculpting for a long time and wrote the fastest OpenGL engine I'd ever seen. 3DC is full of fresh new Ideas but interface and functions feels a little bit cluttered. There's much to do and we should try to get the best out of 3DC with getting ideas also from other apps and help Andrew to code them the 3DC way...

Rene

[Paint Guy]

ZSpheres http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=073956

Mesh Puppetry http://www.kunzhou.net/publications/MeshPuppetry.wmv

That Video is really impressive but I am still torn between what is a better working method. The ZBrush method of using polygons and ZSpheres for posing or the 3DCoat method of using Voxels? As an artist it is essential to pose my models and the ZSpheres look so tempting but in the ZBrush ZSphere II video am I correct in thinking they are adding muscle mass using a type of spherical polygon tool and not voxels?

I have to wonder if ZBrush has made the right move to stick with using "Polygons" rather than adopting a Voxel type system, but then again Voxels have their own set of problems with Posing and deforming when posed, so I am really interested in the best approach.

I would be interested in your thoughts. Below I have written what I see as the benefits and weaknesses of both polygons and voxels but I am in no way a technical person so my understanding of these technologies is limited.

Do you think you might use ZBrush for ZSpheres and 3DCoat for Retopology, Painting and UV's?

Thanks

Voxel Strengths

I love Voxels for their ability to "unite or weld" 2 separate meshes together and for their ability to allow you to sculpt freely without worrying about deforming polygons or poly count.

Voxel Weaknesses

The problem with voxels is in their ability to hold a structure when bent or shaped. For example I don't see how it is possible to pose a voxel model and then have it return to it's original shape. Also if you bend a limb using voxels the overlapping voxels would intersect causing the intersected areas to fuse or weld together wouldn't they, unlike polygons which keep their shape and stay separate.

Polygon Strengths

Polygons are easier to deform and pose due to the fact that they have structure. They are more predictable when posing and can be reposed without worrying about deformation unlike Voxels which when deformed cannot return to their original shape.

Polygon Weaknesses

In the ZBrush ZSphere II video when they add the muscle mass are these not glorified polygons. If they are, then when they overlap does that not produce tons of overlapping polys underneath the outer shell when exported?

Also when using polygons you have to always be aware of poly count and stretching of polys. You can only deform the model to a point and then the polys become stretched and you have n where to go. With voxels you can add continually with no restrictions.

[cuffins]

ZSpheres http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=073956

Mesh Puppetry http://www.kunzhou.net/publications/MeshPuppetry.wmv

That Video is really impressive but I am still torn between what is a better working method. The ZBrush method of using polygons and ZSpheres for posing or the 3DCoat method of using Voxels? As an artist it is essential to pose my models and the ZSpheres look so tempting but in the ZBrush ZSphere II video am I correct in thinking they are adding muscle mass using a type of spherical polygon tool and not voxels?

I have to wonder if ZBrush has made the right move to stick with using "Polygons" rather than adopting a Voxel type system, but then again Voxels have their own set of problems with Posing and deforming when posed, so I am really interested in the best approach.

I would be interested in knowing the benefits of each method. Below I have written what I see as the benefits and weaknesses of both polygons and voxels but I am in no way a technical person so my understanding of these technologies is limited. Do you think you might use ZBrush for ZSpheres and 3DCoat for Retopology, Painting and UV's?

Thanks

Voxel Strengths

I love Voxels for their ability to "unite or weld" 2 separate meshes together and for their ability to allow you to sculpt freely without worrying about deforming polygons or poly count.

Voxel Weaknesses

The problem with voxels is in their ability to hold a structure when bent or shaped. For example I don't see how it is possible to pose a voxel model and then have it return to it's original shape. Also if you bend a limb using voxels the overlapping voxels would intersect causing the intersected areas to fuse or weld together wouldn't they, unlike polygons which keep their shape and stay separate.

Polygon Strengths

Polygons are easier to deform and pose due to the fact that they have structure. They are more predictable when posing and can be reposed without worrying about deformation unlike Voxels which when deformed cannot return to their original shape.

Polygon Weaknesses

In the ZBrush ZSphere II video when they add the muscle mass are these not glorified polygons. If they are, then when they overlap does that not produce tons of overlapping polys underneath the outer shell when exported?

Also when using polygons you have to always be aware of poly count and stretching of polys. You can only deform the model to a point and then the polys become stretched and you have n where to go. With voxels you can add continually with no restrictions.

In fact no one of the actual graphic cards supports native display of voxels. That's why voxels are actually a volumetric calculation method but all ends up with polygons these days, 3Dcoat too. Mostly used algorithm to transform voxels to displayable polys is called "marching cubes", but there are others too. Think of voxels as a bunch of spheres in a raster see wikipedia overlayed with a polymesh for displaying them.

You can't see those spheres in 3DC because they melted together in background mathematically and displayed live as a polymesh. As you may be imagine, there is lot of calculation running in background. Tthis is the reason for performance problems of higher voxel resolutions.

ZB is going a slightly different way...Zspheres are a polygonal representation of a volume. The combination of them is easy, flexible and usable as a rig too. The high resolution polymesh is not generated live as in 3DC but after you're satisfied with your Zsphere model. You can switch between Polymesh and Zspheres easily for editing.

I think this kind of workflow should be possible too for voxels. A bunch of polygonal spheres(or other geometrics) representing a volume with kind of bone like behaviour. Stick them together until you satisfied...and then transform them to voxels...

[LJB]

Polygon Weaknesses

In the ZBrush ZSphere II video when they add the muscle mass are these not glorified polygons. If they are, then when they overlap does that not produce tons of overlapping polys underneath the outer shell when exported?

Also when using polygons you have to always be aware of poly count and stretching of polys. You can only deform the model to a point and then the polys become stretched and you have n where to go. With voxels you can add continually with no restrictions.

mmmm even if it does overlap polygons the tools abnd brushes in ZBrush allow for sculpting and manipulation on that level. Smoothing out between seperate sub objects in a subtool is common practice. as long as you steer clear of tools like Smooth and magnify then is a lovely workflow feels more like real clay sculpting. Trouble is i fear many people have yet to adopt this methodology sticking with the common topological costrained thought processes. These people will not really benifit from this tool if that is how it functions as they may find it difficult to work in that manner.

When all the ovelapping masses are in one subtool posing with either ZSphere rigging or transpose behaves nicely without splitting or shearing. pulling apart of seams. I guess for me the only draw back is the lack of being able to simply grow volume that does noe previously exist. but in that case i would usually just append zshpere or some other form of geo and just smooth it in and get on with shaping it.

Just my two pence.

[artman]

There wont be any strecthing or overlapping polygons once the adaptive skin is made.

Pixologic wouldnt be that stupid.It would be like adding a useless feature.

The way I see it,it is a very efficient way to lay organic models but that's it.

Peoples who are already proficient with zsphere( not a large group of zb users)

will be able to create astounding piece of work with this.

But it does not even come close to voxels in terms of freedom.

By freedom I mean cut,paste,merge,substract functions.

You cannot lay out precise hardsurface pieces based on concept art out of Zspheres.

It really is for organic basemesh generation,with a very stylish and comfortable system.

But frankly I think voxel+quadrangulation is way ahead of that.