https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/User:Sergey/Foundation/2020#Week_426:_24th_February_-_1st_March
General development
- Spent all week on multires.
Next week
- Start moving safe-for-2.83-parts to master
- Get rest of changes testable by artists
Better multires functionality will arrive soon.
Fantastic, I can’t wait! 
On another note, there have been some discussions on adding a warning screen when entering Sculpt Mode with an object that has deformed scaling which causes tons of issues when sculpting. Possible solution is to allow you to apply scale as a pop-up screen when entering Sculpt Mode to help with the issue, which I am personally a fan of: https://developer.blender.org/T74361
Pablo also made a patch improving consistency between small and large scale brushes so that they behave more predictable on non-uniform surfaces: https://developer.blender.org/D6989
I’ve spent some time today experimenting with the cloth brush and I couldn’t get decent results. It works ok on a plane, but as soon as I use it on something slightly more sophisticated it becomes a chore with very little results. It’s still alpha and I’m hoping for improvements, because at this moment I don’t know if I’ll ever use it on my projects.
Did you try the different Cloth brush Deformation and Force Falloff modes? Some Deformation modes behave more predictably than others, but I agree that the Cloth brush needs some practice to become useful. It’d be great if the behaviour could become more predictable.
I am wondering if it could be possible to replace a surface limit by a margin.
Surface of simulation could deduced from stroke for Line and Curve stroke method.
Those methods don’t correspond to anarchic movements.
Pinch perpendicular deformation gives rather predictable wrinkle when used with Line method.
Brush does not work with Curve method. But it would be perfect to place wrinkles.
Here is a clear example why voxel remesher shouldn’t not replace Dyntopo https://developer.blender.org/T74385
But it is not replacing Dyntopo. We don’t know how a potential new system would look like, since the system hasn’t been developed yet. Pablo only mentioned that Voxel Remesher could be a building block for a replacement system, but that’s not much to go on until we actually see it in action.
That’s what experimenting means. I was tweaking parameters and testing on a plane before using it on mesh with volume, and sometimes it didn’t do work at all, like the brush has no effect anymore. The radius is important, so if you’re not working on a square surface, it might not work, you’ll have to size down the radius, with means smaller folds which might not be what you’re looking for.
I can’t make simple large folds like heavier fabrics as it instantly gets overly folded (see comment above), or simply grab and pull on a distance, there’s no way to emulate gravity on volumes.
But if you need folds on a flat surface, it might help tho.
Sculpting + Vertex painting at the same time would be amazing! It’s one major advantage ZBrush has with it’s MRGB sculpting tools, and would save hundreds of hours.
It might happen someday… I hope… 
https://developer.blender.org/rBdaca00f187ea2cc8906094058f45ed9e4c0b13da
https://developer.blender.org/rBb39273c071be288a3cc587eb211d0357ed53d97f
I think at this time that is a pretty well known limitation of voxel remesher and that won’t really change the landscape.
What we need for dynamic topology is a computational geometry wizard who really knows how to get the most out of mesh data structures. If that person could optimism the shit out of bmesh than maybe we get a stay of execution.
Already, there has been initial steps taken to optimize editmode, and since Dyntopo technically is editmode, then any optimization there should speed things up.
Ideally though, Dyntopo would be optimized by way of making it a true sculpt mode tool that makes use of a simplified representation of the Bmesh data structure. However, I’m not sure whether it would have to be a different structure or whether the code can be taught to assume parts that aren’t needed do not exist.
the irony is that while pablo doesn’t like the false impression dyntopo leaves on blender’s overall sculpting performance, the same users being loud about this don’t know what a voxel remesher is. they will use both tools the “wrong way” and file bugs and left angry posts everywhere.
perhaps a popup window after clicking the tools the first time explaining their pros and cons would help.
Yep - that is exactly the scenario I described a few days ago.
Despite being a Dyntopo aficionado, ironically, today I had a bad experience using it, and using the Voxel Remesher at a high detail level helped me out.
I had Booleaned toes together with a foot, then I used the Fill brush in Dyntopo mode to remove the Boolean seams. But the topology got really messy, and holes started to show around the Boolean seams. Using Fill in Edit Mode made things worse, and the ‘Make Manifold’ tool from the 3D-Print Toolbox add-on also didn’t work.
I went back to the initial foot + toes stage, simply used Join to get the toes in the same object as the foot, and then the Voxel Remesh with Fix Poles and a high detail level saved me.
In case Pablo follows this thread, he will probably smile appeasingly now. 
P.S.: Yes, my dramatically announced return to ZBrush lasted approximately 1 day before I already started to miss a lot of Blender tools. I surrender. 
It looks like Box Hide does not work when the mesh has shapekeys. I wonder if this is a bug.
Blender’s voxel’s remesher still needs further development… the lack of boolean subtraction is a major downside… I can’t even find a mention of it anywhere… 
Why is there a Box Hide and not a Lasso Hide too? Lasso Hide is far more useful… 
Since no one mentioned it, Sergey is starting to commit multires fixes.
https://developer.blender.org/rB582205c13449e41cc876d6df951c354e897419ea
This one is rather small in scope, but considering he’s been working on the code for weeks, there should be quite a bit more coming in soon.