4 Likes
Hello Pablo.
—I am really worried about the behaviour of the new pinch brush.(https://developer.blender.org/D6587).
There should be an option to make it works as before (all directions).
This is not good for me.
–Can’t find Hide masked.
Disappeared since 2.81 release.
–I am struggling with broken CTRL Z in sculpt mode.
https://developer.blender.org/T71759
-Opening a 2.7x blend file: i don’t have all the new brushes.
starting a new scene: i have all the new brushes.
Sculpt menus have been remade. Lots of operators to create a mask was added.
So, Hide/Mask menu was renamed Mask and became a lot longer.
Sculpt was also changed. Its content was already available as options in lots of popover.
So, Sculpt menu is, now, where the Hide part has moved.
Developers did not close the bugreport. They are trying to solve Undo issues in a dedicated branch called undo-experiments.
So, like anyone, we have to wait.
That is not supposed to happen.
Although brushes are data of .blend file ; there should be, in toolbar, a category available for each new brush type. And in this category , one brush is always available.
If I try to delete one ; it is recreated, next time, I re-activate the brush type.
2 Likes
Thank you, Zeauro.
In an ironic sense, the developers have been accused before of being insensitive to artist needs because they themselves are not artists.
Pablo comes along and the community now had a guy who was exactly what the community wanted (a developer who was also an artist), and he now gets accused of development that is biased to his personal needs.
If I was a dev. and if I faced this level of catch-22 logic, I would find it tempting to just start ignoring users, or at least be much more selective as to where to get feedback and when to listen.
19 Likes
Sounds pretty much like what he’s been doing so far, and I have absolutely no problem with that for the reason you’ve just invoked: he’s a end user himself and knows how production tools should be like.
Hope he’ll keep going this way.
Who would have thought there could be more than one thing that causes developers to make bad decisions. It would be truly sad if we were to lose developers because they can’t handle people pointing out their mistakes.
3 Likes
Like that old saying goes, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all the time, and if they’re internet people, you may as well punch yourself in the face, cuz there ain’t a thing you can do to please that bunch.
2 Likes
I don’t think I’ve read a single complaint about anything he’s added, but calling removing a major feature he didn’t create that is used by many “development” is a stretch, and even further to suggest no one should complain about it and point out the obvious reason as to why he wants to.
4 Likes
Didn’t you see @riceart talking about the it. Everyone have there own perspective of things. You don’t even know what Pablo thinging about the dnyotopo. He is talking everything publically. Sergey know everything about multires for way long before Pablo came in. Now they are talking about removing multires. That means he doing what best for blender and who comes next as dev.
2 Likes
That’s some miss information…
Multires is not going away fully. Changes, yes.
Dyntopo has a few paths. Might even be replaced with something even better.
Read these dev posts more carefully, please.
2 Likes
So because Pablo is a developer who is also an artist, you can’t disagree with him ? I don’t think this fanboy logic is what Blender needs. I probably love 100% of what Pablo has implemented so far, that doesn’t mean I won’t voice my concerns when I disagree with his suggestions. I also don’t think Pablo wants an echo-chamber, he does not come across as fragile to me, quite the contrary.
And as realeyez said, this discussion is not about him adding his own workflow to Blender sculpting, this is about him talking about removing an existing workflow which he personally does not use, despite a lot of Blender users having this as part of their workflow.
8 Likes
Pablo is not suggesting a complete removal of dyntopo until there is a good replacement. the third solution is propsing some optimizations.
The roadmap should be taken as it’s a proposal not an action, because i think the final decision won’t be his but probably wil come from the whole team.
they’ll discuss this internally before making it public and Pablo will be the one to work on what the outcome of those meetings.
5 Likes
This is just going in circles here. Can we all just agree to disagree and move on until there’s an update please?
5 Likes
I’m fine with telling developers when they need to reconsider a potential decision, but that can be done without outright bashing, character attacks, and snide comments.
I myself would not want to see Dyntopo go away unless the voxel-based remeshing got some major topology improvements or we see volumetric sculpting with things like adaptive subdivision. See, I’m not blindly siding with Pablo, but it helps to read the whole proposal and to put everything in context.
3 Likes
People are reading the whole proposal and pointing out that one option that was suggested is a really bad idea. It takes a huge stretch to act like there has been launching heinous attacks at the devs by pointing out thier mistakes, They aren’t made of tissue paper.
6 Likes
The biggest issue for me is that voxel remesh bridges across close proximity geometry (like spaces between fingers), whereas Dyntopo constant detail fill doesn’t.
Hopefully a reasonable solution can be found.
3 Likes
I expect Pablo’s voxel sculpting successor to Dyntopo to make use of his current Voxel Remesh engine, something like an automatic Voxel Remesh every time you brush, or a local voxel addition only in the area where you’re brushing.
If that’s the case, the Voxel Remesh engine issues will probably remain, unless Pablo manages to get it closer to the refined quality of ZBrush Dynamesh or the OpenVDB Remesh Blender add-on.
3 Likes
Pablo Dobarro just said in the spanish version of Blender Today that dyntopo has to go anyway because of performance.
Check around min 55.
He’s clear about not wanting to work on it, it’s not some conspiracy theory, he doesn’t want to work on it, so it will eventually be removed because he’s pretty much the only one working on the sculpt module.
He then goes on to say again that voxel remesh is better and a full replacement of dyntopo, which again, we’ve said many times before here, is not. Both are very useful together, but one is not the replacement for the other.
I’m all for a better/faster implementation of what dyntopo does if possible, and Pablo has proved to be a great developer, but so far I haven’t seen a clear specific proposal to achieve that. Is a volume/voxel approach capable of using localized detail…?
5 Likes
Voxel remesher is not better than, a replacement for, or the same as Dyntopo.
I find it kind of crazy that a single developer (that’s been with BF for less than a year) has the power to get a functional feature that is used and loved by many removed purely because they fail to recognize the value of it and don’t want to work on it.
1 Like