I'm adding my recent learning in this thread to make sure it's kept alive.
What I'm using: MOP Boolean Plugin in MODO 13 (Basically works like ProBoolean from the looks of it) ZBrush 2019
//My Issue My meshes can get heavy in Modo given their complexity, so on export from MODO to ZBrush, it used to take FOREVER to prep export meshes to be just dense enough to dynamesh smoothly. Especially when intersecting Boolean Meshes were of varying densities.
\\The following was my workflow solution:
TL;DR: Use "Group By Normals" to do a majority of the final prep in Zbrush. Meshes coming from Modo, Max, etc, don't need to be super heavy.
I didn't want to start a new thread, and figured I could get some insight in this thread. Apologies if this is a bit image heavy.
I've been facing this irritating issue with dynamesh, albeit probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, since once it's baked down with textures applied + compressed in engine, it may not be all too noticeable. This issue however isn't unique just to me, it's simply a by-product of how dynamesh works, and others have possibly noticed this as well. I love and use this workflow extensively, and have always noticed that in certain rounded shapes/angles/transitions, you'll get this stepping artifacting shown below. Even at really high dynamesh resolutions, resulting in about 2-3+ million points.
The nature of this is just simply how the voxels are being projected onto the mesh, zooming in and looking at the topology, its the triangles and poles along this surface being the culprit, compounded by the fact we're trying to smooth it via polish tools.
Above in the thread, I've seen some mentions of using relax etc. to relieve this artifacting, but it only does so minimally, and applies a regular polish which I personally do not like. Regular polish, regardless of the mode, adds an inflated effect to the edges, which probably isn't too noticeable in some cases, but I'd rather avoid it and just use crisp edges with a hollow circle.
Something I thought of that would fix this issue altogether, is to just simply have all quads. So I thought of, "why not z-remesh my dynameshed model, project it, and polish the artifacts away?". Totally possible - so first, I grab my post boolean mesh, polygroup by angle (depending on the model, around 20-25 threshold, and this is just so that when I zremesh, it'll have at least some shape preservation with certain options ticked) and zremesh. Then at this point, I divide, project, and repeat until my new zremeshed model is about the same amount of resolution as my dynameshed model with artifacting.
At this point, I can see the original artifacting has projected into the clean quads mesh, but that's fine because once i smooth, it's gone! BUT, there is a new problem I'm facing, which is that with more complex shapes, zremesh will tend to add poles/triangles randomly across the mesh, but worse, at the edges of hard edges/polygroups. This gives me new, different artifacts elsewhere on my model once smoothed... In the image below, it's not as bad as the previous attempts, but this is definitely the cause of the issue itself. I've tried exploring many different options and combinations of dynamesh, zremesh, different amounts of zremesh resolution, with/without polygroups, creasing, using QuadRemesher in Max and re-importing (which is supposedly the same, but improved algorithm) and no luck.
I've even tried using zmodeler tools to inset this entire face with a clean loop all around, which helps, but also not too ideal because there could be some tight areas, which would have the inset collapse on itself, or be extremely dense.
I really thought I had solved this pesky artifacting issue on my own with this method, but now after tons of researching and asking around, I've hit another brick wall and hope anyone else may have some sort of idea or insight to help me out here. Perhaps there is something I'm missing, some further or prior steps I can take to fix this, or an entire other tool in zBrush that i'm completely unaware of that may help as well?
I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent on this small issue, but I hope I've illustrated this problem well enough, in case I've not, I've included a google drive link to a screen recording demoing an example mesh of this process to make things a bit clearer hopefully.
this thread never ceases too amaze, since I was merely swayed by the multitude, way back when that considered the use of booleans for hard surfacing, apocryphal !
@Kanni3d I don't think anyone care about the inflate edges, I have seen it so many times but never saw anything about a solution.
Yeah, agreed. The inflated baloony edges are just from the wrong polish, use crisp edges and youll get the same result, but without the ballooning.
I've got some soft solutions to mitigate the pole topology artifacting, but never fully. it's noticeable and quite ugly looking to have artifacts in your highres. In some cases, it's not visible in my bakes + textures, but I can notice it if I really look for it, and know where to look.
Guys! I have just read all the topic and still have the following question: in terms of hard surface modelling for game industry what pros has subdivision modelling compared to non-destructive boolean modelling? Especially from the client's point of view? I would really appreciate you comments and opinions on this matter.
in terms of hard surface modelling for game industry what pros has subdivision modelling compared to non-destructive boolean modelling? Especially from the client's point of view?
I don't think it's a one-or-the-other thing; I think it's more a question of choosing the right workflow for the right object (and the restrictions/expectations of the client).
Certain objects lend themselves to this sort of workflow, others lend themselves to a subdivision workflow, and some will use a bit of each probably. That's my opinion on it anyway. This is another tool for your toolbox, but it won't replace all the other tools.
Replies
What I'm using:
MOP Boolean Plugin in MODO 13 (Basically works like ProBoolean from the looks of it)
ZBrush 2019
//My Issue
My meshes can get heavy in Modo given their complexity, so on export from MODO to ZBrush, it used to take FOREVER to prep export meshes to be just dense enough to dynamesh smoothly. Especially when intersecting Boolean Meshes were of varying densities.
\\The following was my workflow solution:
TL;DR: Use "Group By Normals" to do a majority of the final prep in Zbrush. Meshes coming from Modo, Max, etc, don't need to be super heavy.
I'm annoyed the solution was buried in a BAKING tutorial on marmoset's website, but I'm pointing it out here for anyone else to use.
https://marmoset.co/posts/baking-a-hard-surface-weapon-in-toolbag/
I now feel freerer to hamfist my way through shapes and volumes with as MUCH complexity as a dang well please.
Thank you to Alex Rodriguez @Alexrodriguez for pointing this tutorial out.
I've been facing this irritating issue with dynamesh, albeit probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, since once it's baked down with textures applied + compressed in engine, it may not be all too noticeable. This issue however isn't unique just to me, it's simply a by-product of how dynamesh works, and others have possibly noticed this as well. I love and use this workflow extensively, and have always noticed that in certain rounded shapes/angles/transitions, you'll get this stepping artifacting shown below. Even at really high dynamesh resolutions, resulting in about 2-3+ million points.
The nature of this is just simply how the voxels are being projected onto the mesh, zooming in and looking at the topology, its the triangles and poles along this surface being the culprit, compounded by the fact we're trying to smooth it via polish tools.
Above in the thread, I've seen some mentions of using relax etc. to relieve this artifacting, but it only does so minimally, and applies a regular polish which I personally do not like. Regular polish, regardless of the mode, adds an inflated effect to the edges, which probably isn't too noticeable in some cases, but I'd rather avoid it and just use crisp edges with a hollow circle.
Something I thought of that would fix this issue altogether, is to just simply have all quads. So I thought of, "why not z-remesh my dynameshed model, project it, and polish the artifacts away?".
Totally possible - so first, I grab my post boolean mesh, polygroup by angle (depending on the model, around 20-25 threshold, and this is just so that when I zremesh, it'll have at least some shape preservation with certain options ticked) and zremesh. Then at this point, I divide, project, and repeat until my new zremeshed model is about the same amount of resolution as my dynameshed model with artifacting.
At this point, I can see the original artifacting has projected into the clean quads mesh, but that's fine because once i smooth, it's gone!
BUT, there is a new problem I'm facing, which is that with more complex shapes, zremesh will tend to add poles/triangles randomly across the mesh, but worse, at the edges of hard edges/polygroups. This gives me new, different artifacts elsewhere on my model once smoothed... In the image below, it's not as bad as the previous attempts, but this is definitely the cause of the issue itself. I've tried exploring many different options and combinations of dynamesh, zremesh, different amounts of zremesh resolution, with/without polygroups, creasing, using QuadRemesher in Max and re-importing (which is supposedly the same, but improved algorithm) and no luck.
I've even tried using zmodeler tools to inset this entire face with a clean loop all around, which helps, but also not too ideal because there could be some tight areas, which would have the inset collapse on itself, or be extremely dense.
I really thought I had solved this pesky artifacting issue on my own with this method, but now after tons of researching and asking around, I've hit another brick wall and hope anyone else may have some sort of idea or insight to help me out here. Perhaps there is something I'm missing, some further or prior steps I can take to fix this, or an entire other tool in zBrush that i'm completely unaware of that may help as well?
I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent on this small issue, but I hope I've illustrated this problem well enough, in case I've not, I've included a google drive link to a screen recording demoing an example mesh of this process to make things a bit clearer hopefully.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ds36_BIONdQ8s50w2ofjv9Nd5_3wHGyV/view?usp=sharing
I've got some soft solutions to mitigate the pole topology artifacting, but never fully. it's noticeable and quite ugly looking to have artifacts in your highres. In some cases, it's not visible in my bakes + textures, but I can notice it if I really look for it, and know where to look.
This is absolutely amazing!!!
Certain objects lend themselves to this sort of workflow, others lend themselves to a subdivision workflow, and some will use a bit of each probably. That's my opinion on it anyway. This is another tool for your toolbox, but it won't replace all the other tools.