Does anyone know if there’s been an updated version of this script released?
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Mesh/Face_Info_Select
It’s probably one of the most useful things I’ve ever installed for blender, and I haven’t been able to use it for the past few releases.
Well, first off I said its “pretty good for what it is”. Just to clarify that’s different from “good enough for what it is”. The two can send two different messages.
Now I dont think we can say it is pretty bad, which is the opposite of pretty good. If you think its pretty bad, I recommend trying other sculpting features found in 3d suit packages. Now those for the most part are “pretty bad”. The same can even be said for mudbox’s sculpting capabilities.
So to reiterate… sculpting as a feature is usually tacked on when found in larger cg packages. If we were going for what was just good enough, it fits in line with the other 3d suits which have a tacked on sculpting feature. They generally lack true sculpting feature sets or delve into detailing. Compared to them and the standards they set, Blender is “pretty good”, even with it having a quirky multirez.
But I also think we can agree that pushing it further, closer to what a dedicated sculpting package (cough zbrush) can do is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact for good sculpting work, its pretty much necessary. This is where I think we get on the same page.
Viewport performance is also a huge one, I agree. We cant even enjoy the matcap feature without a massive performance hit. It ties into pretty much everything one can do within blender’s viewport.
yeh exactly,apologies for mis quoting you…
I understand what you are saying,we are pretty spoilt with what we have available in blender, free or charge.I don’t expect to have anything as powerful as zbrush.However,Nicholas has a full time job,and a lot of the sculpting community here think we need to “start over” because he isn’t available for such a task.
Lets also take into account that the sculpting community isn’t very big here,its only since dyntopo/kent trammels tuts that people are getting more into it.For the most part,it seems the BA community is more about arch-viz + vehicles,basically hard surface stuff.So I think its only recently that people are starting to, ahem, “complain” for lack of better word,about sculpting tools.
I was hoping it would be addressed in this years GSOC,i don’t think we know the results of that yet.
I started learning python today,maybe in 10years I can code my own multires haha.
No, I was talking about the things that have been invented. What do you suggest, that Cycles start implementing things that will be invented tomorrow?
If not, then there is always a much better solution to an existing problem waiting to be invented, -that’s a rule, no underestimation intented.
This is isn’t true. There are problems that are provably unsolvable or are solvable in no less than a given complexity class. The methods we use today have been more or less formulated many decades ago, only through the increase in computational power have they become feasible today. Conversely, many optimizations that may have had a relatively big impact in the past, have become obsolete because the difference they make is negligible today.
A lot of very smart people have spent a good deal of their time thinking about the problem, so while I wouldn’t rule out that through some stroke of genius somebody reformulates the problem in such a way that makes rendering much faster, I suggest you actually improve your knowledge on the matter before making such an assessment.
I got a LOT of crashes lately with blender on windows.
When I enter in edit mode, or when I change some values in cycles.
But I dont know how to report it. the crashes are so random. 
Am I alone?
MmAaXx i’m using latest buildbot on windows on a commercial work i’m doing. The scene is not big, it’s a singular model, but works pretty fine here. No crashes at all. Didn’t try a heavy scene though.
I got crashes especially when I split the viewport and open the uv editor, or when press TAB for the edit mode. The mesh is not se heavy but I got troubles.
I think I’ll record a video because it happen every 10 mins
Yep maybe it’s better. Buildbot or Official / Mingw or not…i jump in out edit mode a lot works fine here.
If a Blender developer does some research along with the development, or does some really clever optimization, he might arrive to something new, an invention that didn’t exist the day before. So my little idea was towards that direction.
I took a quick look at the link you provided and a couple of other resources for a brief explanation. From what I read, Alan with the “Halting machine” didn’t prove that there are “unsolvable problems” in the universe -far from this. He just proved the undecidability in a closed system, where it is set to a closed feedback. So IMO, if the closed feedback is taken into account, problem solved!
No disagreement here. People back then, were much wiser and inventive than today’s’ people, in all areas, but that doesn’t mean that revolutionary new methods won’t appear in the foreseeable future.
I will if I find the time, out of curiosity, but knowledge of specific details about something is not required to judge known universal facts that apply to a whole class of similar things. And BTW, when you’re too much involved in the details of anything (including music, writing, developing -you name it), inspiration is lost no matter how smart you are, because when you e.g focus on the leave of a tree, you can’t help but lose sight of the forest.
I’m sorta jumping in here, and it’s slightly unrelated to both the thread and your discussion with Zalamander, but THANK YOU for saying that :yes: It’s something I’ve come to realize recently and still struggle with, so to have it reiterated here is…well, it just brought the widest smile to my face 
Sorry double post
Glad I waited to respond, you added information about displacement sculpting. This has already been done in zbrush and quite well. The whole displacement argument falls flat.
Sorry when I mention displacements I don’t mean UV mapping. Any alpha based brush is a displacer.
SaintHaven, a tip for you, when projecting displ maps (as brushes, stencils etc) use view plane instead of area plane. Please try it. I’t essential.
As for all these uses of UV mapping/displacements in zbrush, sorry. I don’t eat this.
In such cases, blender is much superior, faster, more productive to zbrush.
I don’t really care how many details zbrush users can add. Their engine can render lots of millions of faces, they can displace (fake) as much they like, but they have to rebake, retopo the whole monster after.
So, please don’t compare these non senses to my method. It’s not fair. My method produces ready to export low poly assets of simple clean nice topology.
You know, I keep reading your posts. It seems that you have to prove something, I don’t get it.
You keep not being convincing though. Somehow.
OK, a bit offensive, but I had to.
(BTW, I already posted similar tutorials on UV displ sculpting, using zbrush, in zb forum. Some thanked me but again who cares) A competitive forum that smells bad sometimes. Very bad.
Sorry for this,
Just posting resulpts posted in zbrush forum. Same displ + UVs technique under zbrush.
In my case 10 mins of work, not days and days and hours. But how could I do this without blender? Or probably another app with a decent UV editor? (which one really?)
IMHO that’s just palaver. I’ve never seen a botanist or an ecologist forget the forest. Or a physicist forget the universe. Or a doctor forget his patient. It’s their job not to. When people fail to study the so-called details before speaking, we get Fox News.
Well, I was speaking more specifically from a modelling perspective - I can get so focused on the topology that I (in a way) forget the model as a whole, and eventually burn myself out. It’s happened several times with my Audi A5 project (which still isn’t done).
The way I see it, it can also be interpreted as a reminder to relax and not go nuts over the tiny details so much. A “relax and go with the flow” kind of thing.
I don’t know, I guess it just hit me harder than it would have usually since I’ve been discovering a slightly more “artistic” side of myself lately - one less obsessed with the technicalities of creating something
Now THAT just brought the widest smile to MY face. 
Yes, he might. I’m sure Brecht does a lot of thinking on its own, because it’s not interesting to just re-implement what others have done already. Often enough however, you’ll come to the conclusion that you can’t outsmart them. I’m not sure what your “idea” actually is, but if it boils down to “Just be innovative and see how you can make this 10x faster, kthxbye” that just reminds me of what clueless people from management would tell their engineers.
I took a quick look at the link you provided and a couple of other resources for a brief explanation. From what I read, Alan with the “Halting machine” didn’t prove that there are “unsolvable problems” in the universe -far from this. He just proved the undecidability in a closed system, where it is set to a closed feedback. So IMO, if the closed feedback is taken into account, problem solved!
So by redefining the problem to something that isn’t the original problem, it becomes solvable? I don’t think so. You’re solving a different problem, however that may indeed be what you actually need to do in order to get things done.
I will if I find the time, out of curiosity, but knowledge of specific details about something is not required to judge known universal facts that apply to a whole class of similar things.
The problem is, you’ve haven’t said anything that is even remotely tangible.
And BTW, when you’re too much involved in the details of anything (including music, writing, developing -you name it), inspiration is lost no matter how smart you are, because when you e.g focus on the leave of a tree, you can’t help but lose sight of the forest.
This is true, to a certain degree. People occasionally find solutions to problems outside their own field, because they are able to look at things from a different point of view. They may discover that the problem a lot of experts are working hard at solving is not the problem that needs solving. However, merely mentioning this is indeed palaver - what are we actually to do?
Note: Long response in 3, 2 1…
Of course I tried it. You can see the difference below, some subtle differences but nearly the same.
Proof:
I am showing that there is a difference in detail between how zbrush “displaces” alphas and how Blender displaces alphas.
I dont understand why you are so adamant to oppose such an obvious difference between the two. How can you say, when looking at the pictures provided, that Blender offers more detail when doing such?
It’s essential to keep it objective.
As for all these uses of UV mapping/displacements in zbrush, sorry. I don’t eat this.
- they started copying my method and they did well. (without mentioning me but who cares now)
- They used other applications for editing these UVs but they avoid mentioning them
- There is not a decent, advanced UV editor in zbrush anyway. Only clever tricks producing wonderful random effects. No control on this, by all means.
I dont know how you can prove someone copied you or not, or that you created/invented that “look” via displacements. I think more importantly is the point that its being done in zbrush, where as prior you implied its solely done in blender. No one said they cant go and edit UVs in an external application, it doesnt change anything if they do. They could even stay in zbrush if they want. See below:
Lack of control?
Lack of controlled UVs?:
In such cases, blender is much superior, faster, more productive to zbrush.
I never implied Blender cant be more useful or even productive, rather I addressed your blanket statement that Blender was a better sculpting program, that for the purposes of sculpting it is superior. It is not. I would be happy if it was, but its not.
The comment you are responding to is focusing on just sculpting capabilities, and for my pipeline, thats more important than whether or not theres a tool or node setup to make it look pretty in cycles quickly.
I don’t really care how many details zbrush users can add.
But see I do and thats why I posted to begin with. Why do you have a problem with this? Are you projecting what you dont care about on others, as though their cares should be limited to yours? I dont think you would conciously intend to do that.
Their engine can render lots of millions of faces, they can displace (fake) as much they like, but they have to rebake, retopo the whole monster after.
Yes it can render millions of polys, I noticed Blender can do it do. But as I pointed out you dont need millions of polys to detail a mesh with an alpha or other tools. SO my test–>example with pictures seems to be what you are ignoring. Same mesh, same polycount, same alpha, nearly identical settings, different levels of surface detail/displacement.
The results are immediate, also in areas where high detail sculpts need to be used outside of cycles/mental ray/arnold…ect rendering, retopo is normal, even in Blender. So I am not sure what your problem is with retoplogy being present in both applications.
What you are saying is to the point of over exaggerating (at least thats the impression I get). Dont you think we might both want Blender to get better? It seems like you are happy to limit that desire unless it involves the multirez modifier.
So, please don’t compare these non senses to my method. It’s not fair. My method produces ready to export low poly assets of simple clean nice topology.
Does it? For use in what? Zbrush cant do this? I have taken a base mesh, with clean topology, sculpted detail on it, knocked out the proper maps and exported a low poly just as easily. I hope you are not implying that this doesnt exist outside of blender.
Dont get me wrong, I do like your work. In fact you are a fantastic artist and I respect that, but you also seem to try and control the discussion where sculpting is concerned. For the most part, I have only seen statue-like sculpting from you, a certain style for use in rendering with a node set up within cycles. So my perception of what you know or are comfortable with is limited to that type of art and usage. Out of curiosity, and I mean this in the most friendly and curious way possible, have you done any other kinds of work?
For example, there are many other fields in which sculpting plays a role in. A game artist, environment or character, for both current and next gen artwork, would need to sculpt high detail meshes, retopologize, UV and bake out a normal map. Cycles doesnt even matter to those people. Its not just art but rather an asset that need to be functional for use in a game engine.
If you limit what you think sculpting tools should be to quick shapes, some cycles nodes and a render in the name of “fine art”, then you end up limiting not only the tools themselves but isolate other pipelines and industries that make use of sculpting features.
I dont think its too much to ask or too far fetched to desire the same kind of detail from an alpha in blender thats seen in zbrush (on equal polycount meshes).
Thats why I do not understand your “protest”, if thats the right word.
You know, I keep reading your posts. It seems that you have to prove something, I don’t get it.
Not proving anything beyond supporting my perspective and experience with Blender’s sculpting tools. I made a comment on a difference in result that I noticed, (a test if you will), and then showed it. You protested, so I gave more concrete details.
If it were a hypothesis, I have given something objective to work from. So no its not “proving” anything as much as backing up my posts (given your reaction) and expressing a desire to see improvements in a program I enjoy using (Blender).
Its that simple.
You keep not being convincing though. Somehow.
You think pictures showing the difference isnt convincing? Honestly it seems like you wont be happy no matter whats presented. If you think I and the pictures are wrong, provide some in return and instructions on how to emulate it.
I would be happy to have them, because I would love nothing more to be proven incorrect on the detail aspect.
A competitive forum that smells bad sometimes. Very bad.
LOL I can agree with that. Its why I wouldnt blame anyone for not wanting to be a part of that forum.
But how could I do this without blender? Or probably another app with a decent UV editor? (which one really?)
There are tons, both standalone and part of other applications in the form of plugins.
A personal favorite of mine is called Roadkill UV (its free) (stand alone or as plug in)
See:
Theres:
Headus UVLayout (commercial UV app, very popular)
Ultim. Unwrap 3D
Wings3D
UVMapper
…ect
But all that isnt really the point. It shouldnt be that you have to avoid Blender but that it can be done without it…even all in zbrush if you use the below method. Sculpting can be done in one and UV in another. Zbrush started off a 2.5d painting application, not a sculpting one. This means you can paint and pull 3d information on a 2d like plane and use the result with a larger sculpting project. Its not uncommon for 3d texture artist to create tiled textures using the 2.5d process in zbrush.
I hope you can see this more as a friendly discussion and dialog, rather than a debate about who is right or wrong.
Looking good. I would like to say thank you to the Foundation for adding a Maya preset, even if it was a few updates ago. It makes things a lot easier if you are coming in from Maya or Silo.
I think a 3ds Max preset would be the next best thing to happen to Blender. Its user base rivals that of Maya so its the next logical one to target.
2.67 should have a 3ds Max preset, check the little list.
Re: Xrg.
My god. You’re right! Just installed 2.67…and its got a Max preset! o_O
I feel like Alan Grant from Jurassic Park, “How do you do this?” O_O
