Primarily, hard-surface sculpting/concepting, but also the HD Geo workflow for more detailed/realistic organic stuff.
However, it’s more about the ecosystem of tools and how they work together. The design of Zbrush is devilishly clever and everything works so well in that environment. Even the basic functionality and how it all revolves around ctrl/alt/shift - hiding/unhiding polygroups, masking, the navigation. It’s hard to explain, but they really nailed it when they conceived the design. The hard-surface workflows are particularly going to be very hard to emulate.
Are you sure you haven’t used Zbrush since version 1? I’ve also been using it since V1. I’m not sure what you mean at all regarding the ‘stylised tools Vs realistic’? It doesn’t make much sense to me.
This bit here has me especially puzzled?
Currently, the Clay brush engine/system in ZB is vastly superior to Blenders. To me, that should be a priority. The brushes are very limited and don’t feel as natural as ZB’s.
There no such thing as “stylized” or “realistic” tools. Better control and predictability in the same tools allow for better/faster stylized results. Any imperfection is more visible. Zbrush 1-2 has much worse control and predictability in it’s tools and it was harder to create stylized characters than in 3 and 4
The brushes are very limited and don’t feel as natural
exactly what i’m talking about. And I can’t see any problem in Pablo’s personal art style here - even opposite.
The Clay brushes didn’t exist back then(which brings me back to my main point that the Clay engine in Blender isn’t good enough) There were only 8 brushes in ZB back then. It was still very predictable(just the same as it is today using Standard brush) if you understood how to sculpt using subdiv levels.
So you agree with me then?
I never said there was. I said that his focus on it limits the development.
Jeremy Hu, creator of the Dust 3D modeling app is advancing in his auto-retopology development. As Dust 3D is open source, this might be interesting to Blender as well.
Neat! I am however curious how the remesher looks on more mechanical objects with decent loops and such. Also hope that if it gets implemented that the devs will develop a more solid foundation for symmetrical remeshing, since the current system is not very good with all the mesh artefacts at the symmetry line.
I have not seen in any other software the communication and feedback that exists between developers and users in Blender.
In my opinion Blender developers waste a lot of time communicating with users (myself included) in all available official contact channels. Maybe they could focus more on their work if they didn’t waste so much time with us. (I’m not being ironic, what I say is completely sincere)
I don’t expect Pablo to be responding to every single question by every single user all the time, or to be very active in any of the channels we have available, but he should at least answer to feedback every once and a while.
I mean, he only seems to pay attention to feedback when is something he’s personally interested into, if it’s not the he simply ignores it.
There’s no such thing…
You can’t develop something that you don’t use without deeply communicating with those who actually use it… otherwise your product will suck…
Mention a couple of other Blender-like softwares where you have as many possible direct communication channels with developers as we have with Blender.
That’s not the point… The point is, there’s no such thing as “wasting time communicating with users”… Devs do it cuz they know how valuable the users feedback is…
…
