Yeah that was post-dynamesh. The issue in the image you posted is insufficient polygon density for the object. You can solve it by increasing either the Dynamesh resolution or the absolute size of the objectDan Powell said:Notice how crisp and perfect all of the edges are on this model after the Dynamesh?
Unless I'm misunderstanding... This model at that point in the opening post has been dynameshed, hasn't it? D=
I think you should learn it. Then you can decide whether to keep using it based on direct experience. This also goes for subdivision modeling.FireyMoltak said:Hey guys, blown away by this thread but a question from an amateur:
I think the only doubts I have with this method is that, is this a good method I should learn (as a noob in modeling)??
On one hand, I feel like this is amazing and believe many things can be created (some even seem impossible to do in sub-d w/o giving you a migraine). Then, on the other hand, I'm wondering if it's bad to learn this because people will think it's lazy and bad because of the topology (like the "quads quads quads!") but I've heard somewhere that this method was used to make The Divisions weapons??!
unless.... it's actually really easy but manual to get nice topology afterwards...
please shine some light to my ignorance xD (side note: ... i dont even understand where the low poly comes from when making high poly ;~;)