I know for a fact that some studios do it like this, yes. I don't mean entirely recreating it in subD, though. Basically like you see in the epic games videos from 2013 a page before, doing a zbrush retopo and cleaning up edges that were loose or messy in the initial sculpt, etc.
Still, so far it's "only" good for designed/stylized meshes with relatively low complexity (the type of bold shapes with random circular insets you keep seeing with this, character attachments, weapons)
Anything large with a high number of interlocking parts like a helicopter or car, or something that needs to follow real-world reference, are not easily done with this workflow.
This is obviously with the old tools. Roll on Zbrush 4R7! Not being bias as I also use Modo... at the moment. At the end of the day, it's about what gets the job done and what YOU'RE most comfortable with.
As for retopo, you won't perform that stage on the 30M mesh, you'll be using a decimated version, which brings about its own concerns. The decimated mesh will have lots of areas with bad shading, but you just have to trust that they look good in the original mesh.
I wonder how true this is though for someone who knows the ins and outs of Zbrush. For example, making use of polygroups to create loops and Zremesher to have fairly solid lower poly topology.
In other words I'm a bit skeptical regarding the opinion that the sculpted approach is really less ideal since that each "side" seems to have their own tricks up their sleeves for getting the best results.
All I was saying is, the issues you listed are not really a dealbreaker compared to the productivity boost you get. It's faster to make a sub-d from scratch indeed, but it's not faster if you design at the same time.
From the perspective of someone who just wants to make clean highpoly meshes off of concept art or blockouts, zbrush will not look like an appealing tool.
No need to pick my post apart and go all snarky on me.
I'm not guessing, I'm talking from experience. I would love to travel to the la-la land where you consistently get delivered zbrush hard surface meshes that have clean topology, scale, explosions and a reasonable polygon count. If you're going to go to all that work, you might as well make a sub-d mesh to start with. It's faster to make sub-d from scratch than to retopo a polygon soup.
We have countless examples of the advantages of hard surface subd. If zbrush hard surface was a viable and general solution, we'd be seeing countless examples of that too, not just theory.
Well you are giving an opinion, and like butt holes everyone seems to have one. You could say from you experience you feel that way, someone else with their set of experiences might see it the other way. I think what is more important though, and subjective, is the question of how long it takes.
When you use words like la la land, and polygon soup... it conveys a strong bias and its hard to take your opinion as being fully rational. I am not saying you are wrong or right for that matter, rather you are not helping your case. I dont think you understand the full nature of polygroups, zremesher and what you can do with both alongside scripts both in and outside of Zbrush, then again maybe most sculptors dont either.
Well if you need 5 paragraphs to explain to me how exactly you're not snarky, I'm not sure if I'm buying it But anyway, to adress your points:
The topic wasn't really: "Is zbrush the perfect hardsurface modeling tool" but, as I understood it: "Is it a valid workflow for making hardsurface art". Of course there are many technical issues keeping zbrush from being the end-all-be-all tool for such assets. But the upside is that it increases productivity during the design process, since you don't have to stress about clean topology.
Yes, where I work, the design and highpoly modeling process indeed blend into each other, since getting perfectly detailed and rendered concepts for everything is something that I would consider la-la-land.
I was going on that tangent about ownership and creativity and all because I personally know people who were offered senior 3D art positions at a certain studio, and were told that their job is basically to clean up and re-build dynameshed 3D concepts from external artists, and to finalize the highpoly models. These would then again be outsourced to make the lowpoly and textures.
It's not what I or they consider a desirable position and I thought it should be mentioned when talking about a so-called "revolution" of hardsurface modeling, as mentioned in this thread.
If all you want to argue is that there are lots of technical downsides to exclusively using zbrush as a hardsurface modeling tool, I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
I provide the main basis for my stance, effectively disqualifying it as a statement of opinion.
And you are still entitled to your opinion, which that is. I wont argue semantics, however it seems strange that you are taking this personally.
"La La Land" invokes a place of unrealistic expectations, and "polygon soup" refers to the mess of triangles you get from zbrush decimation. How you manage to turn that around into some psycho-analysis about bias and lack of rationality is beyond me. I can only encourage you to discuss the topic and not go on about what you think of my personal qualities. This is not a dating site.
Passive aggressive and with the intent to belittle? I dont quite understand your need to go that far.
Regarding "lala land" that does convey a bias, especially when you claim there is unrealistic expectation tied to it. "Unrealistic" is the opinion you have in this case. Same with polygon soup, you could easily have said with Zbrush's decimation master you get poor results in which to retopologize from...
This is why I brought up Zremesher, pointing out that it is functional and does exist. Same with dynamesh. Not everything you can pump out of zbrush is going to be a mess of triangles. Did you look this up before posting about the decimation master plugin?
Polygroups can be used to define loops for a much higher level of control for the zremesher function, it can also allow the artist to separate individual parts of a sculpt both on the high poly and low poly front. Which is what leads me to the impression that you seem to have lost my point, intentionally or otherwise...I dont know.
That being a question of whether or not what you say is really that simple, and considering that zbrush contains tools and features that might not be apparent at first glance, writing it off entirely might not be a legitimate response.
I am defending neither approach here, but I think you missed that.
Finally lets stop trying to make everything personal, and in some cases a bit creepy. There's just no need for it.
No one receives perfectly detailed and rendered concepts. Still it is highly unusual that concept and hipoly is done by the same person for any assets of significance. That's generally considered poor use of time as they are two different disciplines. Therefore, concept and technical modeling are typically two completely separate stages with separate artists and separate sign-off. Your studio might have so many gifted concept artists that it can afford to have them sit and make clean hipolies, but I believe we'll agree that is not the typical case.
Can't say I agree. Of course there is always some sort of concept, but it's often just a rough sketch and the 3D modeler needs to fill in the blanks, or redesign things that don't work well in 3D. Often enough, though, the highpoly mesh is entirely his design.
It may not be the most efficient approach but a game studio is not a factory. I think a good 3D artist should be able to come up with his own stuff to be efficient in production and wear a few hats at a time.
Yes. That is the sole topic I've addressed.
Ok, I guess we just have perspectives on the whole thing and judge accordingly. It's valid to talk only about technical modeling, but from my perspective it's missing the bigger picture and what zbrush brings to the table there. Technical issues can always be resolved over time.
Why the need for the verbal debate? Why not choose a sample asset, record your times and see who can produce it faster using the software of your choice?
Because that doesn't really prove anything beyond those individual artists proficiency levels.
Aside from that, speed is only one of the concerns. Once the prop is built, the artists should then have to make a set of tweaks and changes based on a fictional art directors whims.
What about if two similar level experienced artists who use different methods give it a go? Or perhaps people timing themselves in both?
I thought that sharing individual proficiency with others was the point for all those speed modeling competitions? Doesn't that relate to this discussion?
you wont find a solid answer, art is all about context,and what works for best for the artist, there is no wrong way, and we are not wired the same.
to me poly modeling and z brushing use different parts of my brain, so i get different design results. i use zbrush when i need initially find a really dynamic form, or more alien shapes, or i use it as more of a quick concept tool, or finisher(alphas).
i have been doing tons of heavy mechanical work, and its mostly classic sub-d, but ill zbrush shapes when its needed, and then usually retopo the zbrush piece really quick. iv been heading into a newer workflow in which ill sub-d then use floaters for design, then quickly run the mesh into z brush and use alphas where the floaters were. more and more of our work is going out for toys/vfx so this lets me deliver a final hipoly that we can send to anyone and its not all floaters etc....do what works for you but focus on the art more than the tool.
Different industries use different tools for a reason. You are trading off dimensional precision for workflow speed and free form editing. Really dimensionally precise hard surface work is done using CAD software (think car bodies for auto production) but the trade off is how incredibly slow and inflexible that workflow is. With sub-d you can very convincingly reproduce those forms to tolerances you can't notice with your eyes and you gain a lot of flexibility. On the far other end of the spectrum is zbrush, which does a lot of things well but well represented curvilinear mechanical forms is not one of them. Not having the control and precision to prefectly reproduce concept art or a real life object is a big issue. Just as much when you are designing your own objects. I don't want to live in a world where design is limited to what the zbrush toolset can cleanly produce.
Totally valid points. But I guess we can all agree that classical subD polymodeling isn't exactly the most fluid workflow out there. It's keeping a lot of talented artists from doing it because it's so technical and cumbersome. Zbrush aims to lower that barrier, just like it did for organic modeling. You might end up seeing automotive designers sketching with zbrush instead of clay.
More talent doing hardsurface stuff means more cool art, it's a win for everyone.
Totally valid points. But I guess we can all agree that classical subD polymodeling isn't exactly the most fluid workflow out there. It's keeping a lot of talented artists from doing it because it's so technical and cumbersome. Zbrush aims to lower that barrier, just like it did for organic modeling. You might end up seeing automotive designers sketching with zbrush instead of clay.
More talent doing hardsurface stuff means more cool art, it's a win for everyone.
You obviously haven't seen people like Tor Frick ( aka Snefer) work in sub d.
Also you are ignoring the fact that if you are doing dense complicated mechanical work Zbrush just doesn't cut it. Sure you could build scifi armor or a chair in zbrush, but not something like a complex vehicle. Zbrush can be nice for blocking out simple hard surface shapes, but anything complex and mechanical you are going to stick to sub d modeling.
I would really like to see anyone try to make something this complex in Zbrush ( this is by Tor Frick):
EDIT: Fair enough this is probably a better example also by Tor:
Well, kind of speaking against my case here, that model is very highly detailed, but it's mostly made of simple primitive-style shapes you could make in zbrush. However, I would like to see the face of the guy who'd have to retopo something like that afterwards :poly124:
Lol. I agree with perna on that one. That thing looks like it would suit zbrush well.
Also consider that the car was redesigned several times the layout of the panel gaps got totally changed 6 times during the process and then factor that into the workflow.
Of course I know Tor's stuff. It's not something you would do with dynamesh, I agree. But with the polymodeling features they announced, it would be quite doable.
I'm not the biggest zbrush fan and I prefer subd modeling, but I think people are too quick to write it off. The technical issues won't be there forever.
I think both methods influence the look if you don't strictly work from a detailed reference. With poly modeling, there is a temptation to use repeating elements that are close to primitives in their basic shape. You also often see people going the path of least resistance and using inset/extrude type details where it's convenient, but avoid cut-in detail that would require floaters, unless using them is not an issue.
With zbrush hardsurface stuff, you tend to see lots of curved shapes and bold, big fillets, but less silhouette detail and overlapping/interlocking pieces.
Of course I'm generalizing but I think you'll see what I mean. There are different strengths and weaknesses to each workflow.
I agree, there is quite a few pieces similar to that made with Zbrush, not to put Tor Frick down though because his subd work is awesome none the less.
All that said, Zbrush 4R7 builds upon whats already been done so far by including some traditional sub options as well, creased edges, edge loops and box modeling tools.
O With poly modeling, there is a temptation to use repeating elements that are close to primitives in their basic shape. You also often see people going the path of least resistance and using inset/extrude type details where it's convenient, but avoid cut-in detail that would require floaters, unless using them is not an issue.
That is very true and it makes me crazy. I also think it is a clear sign of a bad hard surface artist. I think part of the reason some of the people who focus on hard surface modeling find people trying to use zbrush annoying is that it lumps us in with beginners who make those kinds of simple/lazy models and then say "I am a hard surface artist."
I do hard surface work because I genuinely enjoy modeling clean and strong curvilinear forms that merge with functional mechanical details.
Also, I think this is the kind of stuff you are talking about:
This is true, but on the flip side, I also think there are a lot of traditional hardsurface guys that get very defensive towards zbrush because they think their hard work spent learning this workflow counts for less, because you can get similar results in zbrush quicker (technical downsides aside).
That is exactly what I am talking about. It is a lumpy highly stylized car that looks nothing like something that was ever manufactured. Not to say it didn't take skill to make that.
While not quite a car this was shown off down at Gnomon during the Zbrush Summit the other day.
Wtf is up with the stair master action in the highlights and reflections? is this supposed to be impressive? Absolutely HORRID surface quality. Loads of faceting EVERYWHERE. I don't think images like this help with making the case of Zbrush bieng a hard surface modeler.
Wtf is up with the stair master action in the highlights and reflections? is this supposed to be impressive? Absolutely HORRID surface quality. Loads of faceting EVERYWHERE. I don't think images like this help with making the case of Zbrush bieng a hard surface modeler.
Shrug... it was used to showcase how dynamic subdivisions can quickly be used within Zbrush. Probably a fault of the artist not so much the application.
Yeah, the boat and car zbrush examples work against their purpose. Aside from not looking great, they are "design by zbrush", meaning they are made within the strict limitations of the software and you're limited in the kind of shapes you can make. Sure you can make a smooth curve in zbrush, but can you make the exact same smooth curve as in the concept.. and then quickly tweak the entire curve at a later point? etc
Sculpting cars to be worse in every way? Sure.
But what about something like this? Would you rather model, than sculpt this?
Yeah still not impressed. Maybe I've been studying hard surfaces from an industrial design perspective too long to be impressed by this kind of stuff anymore.
Even at the Zbrush summit the Redstorm guys talked about using Max or CAD data as a start for their guns, Zbrush was just a stop along in the pipe, and really for the kind of work they were doing 3d-Coat would have been a better choice with it's more fully fleshed out B-spline tools and much faster solid modeling workflow.
Honestly with how detailed hard surface models are getting these days it really might be easier to just use NURBS over Zbrush or Subd's. So many of the things that are difficult to do in subd are childs play in Nurbs.
They can be for sure. Of course experience plays a role in how fast something gets done, but so does quality of tools.
NURBS in Maya are downright primitive compared to a specialized tool like MoI.
NURBS and subd both have thier fair share of technical issues and challenges in modeling, it's really a matter of which you would prefer to deal with. I personally find subd's to be more complicated to model hard surfaces with than NURBS, but I am using a lightweight CAD package to do it and not something like Max or Maya which makes NURBS modeling overly complex in my opinion.
But what about something like this? Would you rather model, than sculpt this?
Hello no . I have done quite a bit of that kind of stuff and zbrush is the best approach. Although I always build dense base meshes for all the large planes and curves using Sub-D first.
All those things you listed, are limitations with 3dsMAX NURBS. I'm not using MAX though, i'm using MoI which is a CAD package written for designers, not engineers. Yes I would rather use NURBS over sculpting for some of those armor pieces. The lion and eagle head would be easier sculpting.
Maybe Zbrush isn't as clean, even if that might change with 4R7, but for video games, nobody cares...
This isn't true. If you have a lumpy hard surface mesh with a whole bunch of shading issues that is going to show up in the bake and in game. Clean meshes means clean bakes.
Maybe Zbrush isn't as clean, even if that might change with 4R7, but for video games, nobody cares...
It's actually more like the opposite - for product design and visual development, the unavoidable lumpiness of Zbrush hardsurface models is totally acceptable as it is hidden by cool render effects and materials. But for a game relying fully on dynamic lighting it is almost never good enough (besides maybe for MOBA games, or any game in which the art direction allows for directional lighting to be painted in).
Now of course like Jacque mentioned there are some "Zbrush wizards" out there who manage to crank out convincing hard shell models - but few/none of these models are actually of the kind that Per is talking about.
Besides that, one common trait I noticed among people who build everything in Zbrush is a certain tolerance for painful workflows. For instance, I have seem tutorials by Zbrush artists showing that they roughly sculpt something in Zbrush, and retopo it straight within the app (using the horrendous built-in retopo tools) in order to then place creaseloops at the border of polygroups. Not only is this approach limited to some very specific types of surfaces ; it is also an extremely painful and convoluted process. The fact that an artist puts him/herself through all that doesn't say much about the viability/fluidity of the workflow. In other words : good for so-called "shape exploration", "3D maquette concept art" or for models seen from far away ; but not so good for precise execution work.
(And of course, being hard set on staying within Zbrush means no possibility to instance objects or build scene hierarchies, two things absolutely essential for hard surface projects.)
The essential feature that Zbrush misses for hardsurface is actually not fancy brushes, clipping curves or boxmodeling tools but rather, fine control on cross sections and on the curves generating a surface - which is exactly what subdivision modeling is about.
Anyways, discussing these things is not very constructive ; what really matters is the reality of studio production and the years of experience. Now one game changer would be for Max and Maya to integrate some form of sculpting module, but for some reason this is still not the order of the day.
Personally, my favorite workflow is to blockout in polies, subdivide, do rough sculpted adjustments, and retopo to build my final clean cage. Probably not as fast as what the most dedicated hardsurface modelers do, but it suits my needs as this kind of modeling only represents a small fraction of my work. Note that this is for the case of models leaving no room for improvisation (that is to say, the concept is fully locked down beforehand.)
Yeah, the boat and car zbrush examples work against their purpose. Aside from not looking great, they are "design by zbrush", meaning they are made within the strict limitations of the software and you're limited in the kind of shapes you can make. Sure you can make a smooth curve in zbrush, but can you make the exact same smooth curve as in the concept.. and then quickly tweak the entire curve at a later point? etc
As someone who watched the presentation I can say with confidence that the crappy surface quality is a result of the render, and not the surface topology itself.
Zbrush now has the ability to do traditional poly modeling right out of the box, no retopo needed. The problem is they still don't have a grid system or any way to edit individual verts along a single axis that isn't super annoying. If they fix a few more of these problems, Zbrush may not be that bad to start out in. For those interested here is the video demo:
Mix of both, some things are easy to edit in zBrush, some in Max. For instance; ropes, chains, bandages, things that wrap around, I do in Max. UV map, create a tiled 16-bit displacement then use that in zBrush Noise Maker to add the detail. I really don`t wanna fuss around trying to get things wrapped around an object in zBrush, then go back and want to edit it.
Not sure about character guys though, workflow is different I am sure. They might find it easier to do 100% in zBrush.
As an env guy, i'v never had the need for zbrush for anything other than debris and vegetation... i've always found it much more enjoyable to plane model all my hardsurface stuff no matter how organic.
My fav is to plane model pieces like the mechanical bits of the concept bellow. Very challenging shapes! But the skin stuff, ya, sculpting's the way to go.
Modo and Blender has had a sculpting module for years and nothing has changed really.
I wouldn't be surprised if WaxLab3d gets fully integrated into Maya at some point. No different to the NEX dRaster tools.
I think Ryan Kingslien from Zbrushworkshops explained the evolution of these packages quite well in one of his videos. Zbrush started in the area of freeform sculpting and is now moving into hard surface/poly modeling, where most of the other packages started in the hard surface area and are moving into the sculpting arena. Unfortunately I can't do his explanation any justice without writing loads sorry. I think it might be on youtube.
At the end of the day, regardless of what package you use, surely all these upgrades/evolution or whatever you want to call it can only benefit the end user. With all the new innovative ideas and various methods of working, I personally think = creativity. Which surely can only benefit the artist. And if you don't like a certain package, then move to another. Does a painter only try watercolour or does he dab his brush into oils or acrylics? Does he sketch out first before he paints or jumps straight into painting? Oh the beauty of choice.
Modo and Blender has had a sculpting module for years and nothing has changed really.
And Maya made it's debut back in 1998 with the artisan module, which when paired with global stitch let people sculpt on complex multi-patch nurbs surfaces very much like what people do in Zbrush. The main difference being the 'base mesh' in this Maya 1.0 workflow was a multi-patch Nurbs surface that didn't need UV's or remeshing when you were done sculpting it. You did need Renderman though to get good looking output.
Zbrushes major innovation was making the digital sculpting workflow more accessible and trade one set of technical challenges for another that were more approachable for an artist without the resources of a major studio pipeline.
I believe that the reference is to when Zbrush started catching on, and not as the situation is today, which is insanely different than what it was like only 10 years ago.
The amount of polygons we are pushing around in real time in software packages today, on low cost gaming-grade graphics cards is just pure mind-bogling bliss to those of us who were doing 3D for a living when Maya 1.0 (and prior software) was in use.
At the time, Zbrush drastically changed the way alot of people worked.
Hermit - these videos pretty much prove Per's point. First of all, they are accelerated, which certainly makes the workflow appear smoother than it really is. Second, the fact that one can create a certain kind of hard shape inside a sculpting program doesn't say anything on how controllable and tweakable that shape is, and how useable the final output is in a production environment.
Now of course the methods used in these videos are interesting, and great for on-the-fly design fun - but again, this is very different from accurately modeling an asset based on a provided concept.
Fog - no one is bashing Zbrush here ... Per is simply talking from the experience of managing a team of artists expected to produce consistent results for demanding clients. This is of course very different from visual development tasks (for which Zbrush is indeed an amazingly powerful tool), and I think that there is a bit of confusion going on in this thread regarding these two very different fields and the respective relevance of sculpting programs.
Regarding handling sculpting inside regular 3D apps : I am still waiting for a smooth and integrated solution. I did try Blender and Modo again this year for his very purpose but still felt like the sculpting integration wasn't that great. Admittedly my experience was most certainly biased by my relative lack of knowledge of these programs, therefore I am willing to give them another spin soon !
did try Blender and Modo again this year for his very purpose but still felt like the sculpting integration wasn't that great. Admittedly my experience was most certainly biased by my relative lack of knowledge of these programs, therefore I am willing to give them another spin soon !
From what I have seen and experienced so far, a traditional modeling package is usually superior for most hardsurfaced assets because of the precision and efficiency. Often times the precision alone is enough to keep me inside a traditional modeling package over using Zbrush for modeling large forms.
This isn't Zbrush hate, hate implies an irrational emotional bias. It's an objective observation from experience using both packages.
Even if Zbrush matched or surpassed the speed of traditional modelling, the precision would still be lacking for more intricate designs that need to be followed very closely within a timely manner.
Basically, to sum up what I am trying to say, you should use both programs because they each provide unique tools that the other does not.
Replies
Still, so far it's "only" good for designed/stylized meshes with relatively low complexity (the type of bold shapes with random circular insets you keep seeing with this, character attachments, weapons)
Anything large with a high number of interlocking parts like a helicopter or car, or something that needs to follow real-world reference, are not easily done with this workflow.
Which package were you talking about soz.
For Zbrush have a look at Tom Paul's videos on Youtube for Hard Surfacing. He also has a paid one on Zbrushworkshop
www.youtube.com/channel/UCnTMgjeCbqKLtYHoMZTjh6w
Ben Douglas also does some nice vids.
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhzW_gP1MA15ubqnguXay8OOkMrgHMp8a
I also have to mention Michael Pavlovich who also created the Eat3D tutorials
www.youtube.com/channel/UCWiZI2dglzpaCYNnjcejS-Q
This is obviously with the old tools. Roll on Zbrush 4R7! Not being bias as I also use Modo... at the moment. At the end of the day, it's about what gets the job done and what YOU'RE most comfortable with.
I wonder how true this is though for someone who knows the ins and outs of Zbrush. For example, making use of polygroups to create loops and Zremesher to have fairly solid lower poly topology.
In other words I'm a bit skeptical regarding the opinion that the sculpted approach is really less ideal since that each "side" seems to have their own tricks up their sleeves for getting the best results.
From the perspective of someone who just wants to make clean highpoly meshes off of concept art or blockouts, zbrush will not look like an appealing tool.
No need to pick my post apart and go all snarky on me.
Well you are giving an opinion, and like butt holes everyone seems to have one. You could say from you experience you feel that way, someone else with their set of experiences might see it the other way. I think what is more important though, and subjective, is the question of how long it takes.
When you use words like la la land, and polygon soup... it conveys a strong bias and its hard to take your opinion as being fully rational. I am not saying you are wrong or right for that matter, rather you are not helping your case. I dont think you understand the full nature of polygroups, zremesher and what you can do with both alongside scripts both in and outside of Zbrush, then again maybe most sculptors dont either.
The topic wasn't really: "Is zbrush the perfect hardsurface modeling tool" but, as I understood it: "Is it a valid workflow for making hardsurface art". Of course there are many technical issues keeping zbrush from being the end-all-be-all tool for such assets. But the upside is that it increases productivity during the design process, since you don't have to stress about clean topology.
Yes, where I work, the design and highpoly modeling process indeed blend into each other, since getting perfectly detailed and rendered concepts for everything is something that I would consider la-la-land.
I was going on that tangent about ownership and creativity and all because I personally know people who were offered senior 3D art positions at a certain studio, and were told that their job is basically to clean up and re-build dynameshed 3D concepts from external artists, and to finalize the highpoly models. These would then again be outsourced to make the lowpoly and textures.
It's not what I or they consider a desirable position and I thought it should be mentioned when talking about a so-called "revolution" of hardsurface modeling, as mentioned in this thread.
If all you want to argue is that there are lots of technical downsides to exclusively using zbrush as a hardsurface modeling tool, I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
And you are still entitled to your opinion, which that is. I wont argue semantics, however it seems strange that you are taking this personally.
Passive aggressive and with the intent to belittle? I dont quite understand your need to go that far.
Regarding "lala land" that does convey a bias, especially when you claim there is unrealistic expectation tied to it. "Unrealistic" is the opinion you have in this case. Same with polygon soup, you could easily have said with Zbrush's decimation master you get poor results in which to retopologize from...
This is why I brought up Zremesher, pointing out that it is functional and does exist. Same with dynamesh. Not everything you can pump out of zbrush is going to be a mess of triangles. Did you look this up before posting about the decimation master plugin?
Polygroups can be used to define loops for a much higher level of control for the zremesher function, it can also allow the artist to separate individual parts of a sculpt both on the high poly and low poly front. Which is what leads me to the impression that you seem to have lost my point, intentionally or otherwise...I dont know.
That being a question of whether or not what you say is really that simple, and considering that zbrush contains tools and features that might not be apparent at first glance, writing it off entirely might not be a legitimate response.
I am defending neither approach here, but I think you missed that.
Finally lets stop trying to make everything personal, and in some cases a bit creepy. There's just no need for it.
Can't say I agree. Of course there is always some sort of concept, but it's often just a rough sketch and the 3D modeler needs to fill in the blanks, or redesign things that don't work well in 3D. Often enough, though, the highpoly mesh is entirely his design.
It may not be the most efficient approach but a game studio is not a factory. I think a good 3D artist should be able to come up with his own stuff to be efficient in production and wear a few hats at a time.
Ok, I guess we just have perspectives on the whole thing and judge accordingly. It's valid to talk only about technical modeling, but from my perspective it's missing the bigger picture and what zbrush brings to the table there. Technical issues can always be resolved over time.
Aside from that, speed is only one of the concerns. Once the prop is built, the artists should then have to make a set of tweaks and changes based on a fictional art directors whims.
I thought that sharing individual proficiency with others was the point for all those speed modeling competitions? Doesn't that relate to this discussion?
to me poly modeling and z brushing use different parts of my brain, so i get different design results. i use zbrush when i need initially find a really dynamic form, or more alien shapes, or i use it as more of a quick concept tool, or finisher(alphas).
i have been doing tons of heavy mechanical work, and its mostly classic sub-d, but ill zbrush shapes when its needed, and then usually retopo the zbrush piece really quick. iv been heading into a newer workflow in which ill sub-d then use floaters for design, then quickly run the mesh into z brush and use alphas where the floaters were. more and more of our work is going out for toys/vfx so this lets me deliver a final hipoly that we can send to anyone and its not all floaters etc....do what works for you but focus on the art more than the tool.
More talent doing hardsurface stuff means more cool art, it's a win for everyone.
You obviously haven't seen people like Tor Frick ( aka Snefer) work in sub d.
Also you are ignoring the fact that if you are doing dense complicated mechanical work Zbrush just doesn't cut it. Sure you could build scifi armor or a chair in zbrush, but not something like a complex vehicle. Zbrush can be nice for blocking out simple hard surface shapes, but anything complex and mechanical you are going to stick to sub d modeling.
I would really like to see anyone try to make something this complex in Zbrush ( this is by Tor Frick):
EDIT: Fair enough this is probably a better example also by Tor:
Lol. I agree with perna on that one. That thing looks like it would suit zbrush well.
Try doing this car body with zbrush:
http://www.alecmoody.com/7/index.html
Also consider that the car was redesigned several times the layout of the panel gaps got totally changed 6 times during the process and then factor that into the workflow.
I'm not the biggest zbrush fan and I prefer subd modeling, but I think people are too quick to write it off. The technical issues won't be there forever.
I think both methods influence the look if you don't strictly work from a detailed reference. With poly modeling, there is a temptation to use repeating elements that are close to primitives in their basic shape. You also often see people going the path of least resistance and using inset/extrude type details where it's convenient, but avoid cut-in detail that would require floaters, unless using them is not an issue.
With zbrush hardsurface stuff, you tend to see lots of curved shapes and bold, big fillets, but less silhouette detail and overlapping/interlocking pieces.
Of course I'm generalizing but I think you'll see what I mean. There are different strengths and weaknesses to each workflow.
All that said, Zbrush 4R7 builds upon whats already been done so far by including some traditional sub options as well, creased edges, edge loops and box modeling tools.
http://youtu.be/6v3714_DrCs?t=15m58s
@AlecMoody,
While not quite a car this was shown off down at Gnomon during the Zbrush Summit the other day.
That is very true and it makes me crazy. I also think it is a clear sign of a bad hard surface artist. I think part of the reason some of the people who focus on hard surface modeling find people trying to use zbrush annoying is that it lumps us in with beginners who make those kinds of simple/lazy models and then say "I am a hard surface artist."
I do hard surface work because I genuinely enjoy modeling clean and strong curvilinear forms that merge with functional mechanical details.
Also, I think this is the kind of stuff you are talking about:
This is the best attempt I have seen but it looks like it was hit with a baseball bat everywhere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udLP8JxqXFU
Wtf is up with the stair master action in the highlights and reflections? is this supposed to be impressive? Absolutely HORRID surface quality. Loads of faceting EVERYWHERE. I don't think images like this help with making the case of Zbrush bieng a hard surface modeler.
Why not both?
Shrug... it was used to showcase how dynamic subdivisions can quickly be used within Zbrush. Probably a fault of the artist not so much the application.
You can see the specific clip regarding the making of that here:
http://youtu.be/C3KK9ym-F84?t=42m54s
This is a better example using the same features as above, but its not a vehicle.
http://youtu.be/6v3714_DrCs?t=27m50s
Sculpting cars to be worse in every way? Sure.
But what about something like this? Would you rather model, than sculpt this?
Even at the Zbrush summit the Redstorm guys talked about using Max or CAD data as a start for their guns, Zbrush was just a stop along in the pipe, and really for the kind of work they were doing 3d-Coat would have been a better choice with it's more fully fleshed out B-spline tools and much faster solid modeling workflow.
Honestly with how detailed hard surface models are getting these days it really might be easier to just use NURBS over Zbrush or Subd's. So many of the things that are difficult to do in subd are childs play in Nurbs.
But are they faster?
They can be for sure. Of course experience plays a role in how fast something gets done, but so does quality of tools.
NURBS in Maya are downright primitive compared to a specialized tool like MoI.
NURBS and subd both have thier fair share of technical issues and challenges in modeling, it's really a matter of which you would prefer to deal with. I personally find subd's to be more complicated to model hard surfaces with than NURBS, but I am using a lightweight CAD package to do it and not something like Max or Maya which makes NURBS modeling overly complex in my opinion.
Hello no
I don't know...It doesn't seem to support modifiers (array, cage/lattice, bend...).
Also it seems you can't control the topology, nor the density.
And then again, would you rather use NUMBRS than scult the previus example?
Yes. If you already had some basic shape of the shoulderpads and armor (without the stripes and animal heads).
He seems hard enough to me to be clasified as hard surface.:)
This isn't true. If you have a lumpy hard surface mesh with a whole bunch of shading issues that is going to show up in the bake and in game. Clean meshes means clean bakes.
Marco Plouffe
Fred D'Aoust
I do find the different softwares lend themselves to different styles of hardsurface.
What they are doing on the next Deus Ex game is pretty awesome.
It's actually more like the opposite - for product design and visual development, the unavoidable lumpiness of Zbrush hardsurface models is totally acceptable as it is hidden by cool render effects and materials. But for a game relying fully on dynamic lighting it is almost never good enough (besides maybe for MOBA games, or any game in which the art direction allows for directional lighting to be painted in).
Now of course like Jacque mentioned there are some "Zbrush wizards" out there who manage to crank out convincing hard shell models - but few/none of these models are actually of the kind that Per is talking about.
Besides that, one common trait I noticed among people who build everything in Zbrush is a certain tolerance for painful workflows. For instance, I have seem tutorials by Zbrush artists showing that they roughly sculpt something in Zbrush, and retopo it straight within the app (using the horrendous built-in retopo tools) in order to then place creaseloops at the border of polygroups. Not only is this approach limited to some very specific types of surfaces ; it is also an extremely painful and convoluted process. The fact that an artist puts him/herself through all that doesn't say much about the viability/fluidity of the workflow. In other words : good for so-called "shape exploration", "3D maquette concept art" or for models seen from far away ; but not so good for precise execution work.
(And of course, being hard set on staying within Zbrush means no possibility to instance objects or build scene hierarchies, two things absolutely essential for hard surface projects.)
The essential feature that Zbrush misses for hardsurface is actually not fancy brushes, clipping curves or boxmodeling tools but rather, fine control on cross sections and on the curves generating a surface - which is exactly what subdivision modeling is about.
Anyways, discussing these things is not very constructive ; what really matters is the reality of studio production and the years of experience. Now one game changer would be for Max and Maya to integrate some form of sculpting module, but for some reason this is still not the order of the day.
Personally, my favorite workflow is to blockout in polies, subdivide, do rough sculpted adjustments, and retopo to build my final clean cage. Probably not as fast as what the most dedicated hardsurface modelers do, but it suits my needs as this kind of modeling only represents a small fraction of my work. Note that this is for the case of models leaving no room for improvisation (that is to say, the concept is fully locked down beforehand.)
As someone who watched the presentation I can say with confidence that the crappy surface quality is a result of the render, and not the surface topology itself.
Zbrush now has the ability to do traditional poly modeling right out of the box, no retopo needed. The problem is they still don't have a grid system or any way to edit individual verts along a single axis that isn't super annoying. If they fix a few more of these problems, Zbrush may not be that bad to start out in. For those interested here is the video demo:
Also 4 R7 now has instances.
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3KK9ym-F84[/ame]
Not sure about character guys though, workflow is different I am sure. They might find it easier to do 100% in zBrush.
My fav is to plane model pieces like the mechanical bits of the concept bellow. Very challenging shapes! But the skin stuff, ya, sculpting's the way to go.
Modo and Blender has had a sculpting module for years and nothing has changed really.
I wouldn't be surprised if WaxLab3d gets fully integrated into Maya at some point. No different to the NEX dRaster tools.
I think Ryan Kingslien from Zbrushworkshops explained the evolution of these packages quite well in one of his videos. Zbrush started in the area of freeform sculpting and is now moving into hard surface/poly modeling, where most of the other packages started in the hard surface area and are moving into the sculpting arena. Unfortunately I can't do his explanation any justice without writing loads sorry. I think it might be on youtube.
At the end of the day, regardless of what package you use, surely all these upgrades/evolution or whatever you want to call it can only benefit the end user. With all the new innovative ideas and various methods of working, I personally think = creativity. Which surely can only benefit the artist. And if you don't like a certain package, then move to another. Does a painter only try watercolour or does he dab his brush into oils or acrylics? Does he sketch out first before he paints or jumps straight into painting? Oh the beauty of choice.
And Maya made it's debut back in 1998 with the artisan module, which when paired with global stitch let people sculpt on complex multi-patch nurbs surfaces very much like what people do in Zbrush. The main difference being the 'base mesh' in this Maya 1.0 workflow was a multi-patch Nurbs surface that didn't need UV's or remeshing when you were done sculpting it. You did need Renderman though to get good looking output.
Zbrushes major innovation was making the digital sculpting workflow more accessible and trade one set of technical challenges for another that were more approachable for an artist without the resources of a major studio pipeline.
Are you trying to say Modo and Blender can't handle dense meshes?:shifty:
The amount of polygons we are pushing around in real time in software packages today, on low cost gaming-grade graphics cards is just pure mind-bogling bliss to those of us who were doing 3D for a living when Maya 1.0 (and prior software) was in use.
At the time, Zbrush drastically changed the way alot of people worked.
I'm saying they couldn't do that at the time first zbrush version was released.
Now of course the methods used in these videos are interesting, and great for on-the-fly design fun - but again, this is very different from accurately modeling an asset based on a provided concept.
Fog - no one is bashing Zbrush here ... Per is simply talking from the experience of managing a team of artists expected to produce consistent results for demanding clients. This is of course very different from visual development tasks (for which Zbrush is indeed an amazingly powerful tool), and I think that there is a bit of confusion going on in this thread regarding these two very different fields and the respective relevance of sculpting programs.
Regarding handling sculpting inside regular 3D apps : I am still waiting for a smooth and integrated solution. I did try Blender and Modo again this year for his very purpose but still felt like the sculpting integration wasn't that great. Admittedly my experience was most certainly biased by my relative lack of knowledge of these programs, therefore I am willing to give them another spin soon !
Oh. Ok.
Please do.
This isn't Zbrush hate, hate implies an irrational emotional bias. It's an objective observation from experience using both packages.
Even if Zbrush matched or surpassed the speed of traditional modelling, the precision would still be lacking for more intricate designs that need to be followed very closely within a timely manner.
Basically, to sum up what I am trying to say, you should use both programs because they each provide unique tools that the other does not.