https://developer.blender.org/D7059
As i said it works with Grab brush but it doesn’t for other brushes (Elastic Deform, Scrape, Smooth…).
4 Likes
I was talking about something else (topological distance vs geodesic distance), but you’re correct, currently “topology automasking” doesn’t seem to work in all cases or with all brushes.
Actually after so many addons, tools, brushes ect for draft model sketching I was surprised how good is just a box-blocking with Voxel Remesh workflow:
11 Likes
Use shape keys. It practically works the same as sculpt layers.
Shall this be reported as a bug?
I’ve made a search about Topology Automasking there and found like 20 pages…
I found this but it’s about Pose Brush.
_
Shape keys only work with multires level 0, i think you are missing the point.
3 Likes
I don’t know.
Topology automasking seems to work for all brushes in case of isolated parts but not in case of holes.
Holes may be a limitation for topology automasking for some brushes.
Pablo created Face Sets after topology automasking. It looks like Face Sets automasking can be a workaround. Define a face sets on one side and then, problem is solved.
Maybe, Pablo will try to fix this. Maybe, he will just describe limitations in manual.
Ok so “Topology Automasking” seems to be the good term and work as intended, if a mesh sharing the same Topology = a set of Polygons that are connected in some way regardless of the distance between each other. I guess that means if polygons are completely disconnected, they are not part of the same topology.
So the Zbrush “Move Topological” brush name is misleading and should be “Move Geodistic” or whatever the term for surface falloff thing is.
The face set automasking is not a good workaround.
- I have to do it after any brush stoke if using dyntopo
- Doing a face set each time surface falloff is needed is annoying and counter-productive
- It doesn’t behave as a working surface falloff cause even if the brush doesn’t deform an overlaying set of polygons from a different face set, the brush is still calculating it as shown in this example:
So yeah, it might not be the most essential feature to have right now but it’s a really good one to have. As soon as I discovered this feature in Maya it gave me a great sense of control, comfort and efficiency.
I guess the next step would be for me to write a Right-Click Select proposition?
EDIT:Clarity
3 Likes
Do you know what theme this is?
You can also post it in this thread at Devtalk, for a little more chance of it being noticed by Pablo and/or other Blender devs.
For more chance of your feedback being picked up, reply to this task at the Blender Developer site.
2 Likes
Blender Dark and a little help from some filters? Would be my guess 
1 Like
Audiomachine - Godspeed (Mark Petrie - Epic Choral Action)
1 Like
Blender’s main power of the modifier stack is the non-destructive nature of it. The apply base operator modifies the original mesh data itself, which makes it destructive… The main purpose of having this operator as a seperate button is so you can delete the multires modifier after sculpting without a single change in the original mesh data. If you want the base mesh to modify in respect to your sculpted data, you can click ‘apply base’
1 Like
Quick question: Are any of the sculpt paint tools in master yet, or do I need to find/make a build of a special branch? I’d really like to try them, since I was trying to use texture paint the other day and got really irrtitated by the occlusion and masking features - I just couldn’t seem to find a setting where I didn’t get weird shadows where I missed painting something OR weird streaks on the opposite side of the mesh. I noticed that Quixel suffers from similar issues when painting masks, so I guess it’s not that easy to make texture painting not suck.
In the meantime, I suppose I should make use of that zbrush license I bought a year ago…
There is a regularly updated 2.90 alpha version available on blender’s website with the latest sculpting improvements: https://builder.blender.org/download/
This is exactly why sculpt multires had no business being a modifier, but should rather be direct mesh data.
6 Likes
Is this connected to the displacement layer export? I mean, sculpt, export displacement, apply base, then use exported displacement layer with a displacement modifier? Or is it unrelated?
I feel like it really does have a place as a modifier, especially for applying shrinkwrap, displacement and also cloth simulation modifier data into the upper multires modifier…
I don’t know how the multires data is saved… You can bake the multires data into a normal or vector displacement map tough
This makes sense to me. I guess it doesn’t perfectly fit anywhere within Blender anyway : as a modifier it only works if it’s first in the list if I remember correctly, which makes sense because generative modifiers can’t be sculpted on, and shapekeys (if enhanced so as to become sculpt layers of sorts), would have to be connected to the modifier, and would stop making sense as soon as the modifier’s gone.
Maybe it should be a different object type ? “Multires object” ?
1 Like
I had some similar thoughts about it. As far as I know modifiers were intentionally limited to produce a new mesh as output and leave the input untouched. While the apply base button isn’t that much different from applying any modifier itself, the introduction of auto apply base would really break that rule. But I would definitely not prefer having a separate object for it. Differentiating between meshes and multires meshes could just complicate handling things codewise for blender and addons.
1 Like