Oh well and even baking a displacement map doesn’t work properly. It’s just an black image. 
Did another test on a new file, just added a few strokes with different skin alphas and it starts to show a clear pattern when zoomed in, though in my case looks like diagonal lines
1 Like
Yep clearly visible. That is a “serious” issue imo. At least to people who like to use pointiness for a quick mask.
edit: Looked over one of my latest projects and look what i’ve found.
Just commented on your bug report with the same image and uploaded the file as well
1 Like
I thank you a ton for your testing/help!
edit: Oh and sorry for hijacking this thread.
2 Likes
What happened to Pablo? I haven’t seen much updates from him.
It would be a shame if he stopped for some reason while 3.0 is around the corner.
That pattern of random chevrons, diamonds, and diagonals would actually be a pretty cool looking Geometry Nodes modifier. The bug should be fixed anyway, but someone should see if it can be done with what the node tree type gives us so far.
1 Like
Edit: unfortunately just found it’s a tweet from 2020. Hope the performance rewrite it’s still alive
https://twitter.com/pablodp606/status/1309556563787550720?s=20
Original post
1 Like
I don’t know how is that relevant to my question though?
I missed the date of that particular tweet, my fault. I thought it was an ongoin work
He made the Asset Creation Pipeline Design proposal, that included a new … viewport? for high poly sculpts, among other things, I suppose he is working on that, he had in the workboard the vertex and texturing thing, he made also the array brush [spoiler] and he talked about improvements in the sculpt cursor on twitch too [/spoiler]
1 Like
You can look at his weekly reports for a general idea of what he is doing. Currently that’s most reliable source of updates
6 Likes
Pablo posted a bit of a thread on twitter:
Obviously he’s wrong. You’re only a “real” sculptor if you’re sculpting the pores on some wrinkly, old, photo-realistic zombie with 50m polys. 
8 Likes
Thanks god he is not a fan of pixel art and Minecraft style and he not write us a book about bonuses of sculpting everything with boxes…
I think Pablo has some very good points there. As a stylized sculptor myself I can only agree with him. Also, I think Blender is already quite capable of producing photorealistic scenes. As Pablo also stated, you don’t need a gazillion polygons to achieve realism. You can achieve the same level of realism using much less polygons, normal maps and photo-based textures, for example.
11 Likes
I think he is missing the point here, that you CAN take laborious detours to get to a photorealistic result (such as sketching a picture by hand) does not mean you don’t want to bring out a camera and just take a picture…
So, while he discards people’s opinion this way about stylised art, he does the same for photorealism in stating that:
I mean isn’t this also like taking away the opportunity for people to produce this kind of art, if you don’t develop Blender to be capable of really high-poly assets? And if it’s not for animation, should artists really be too concerned about polycount? I daresay no, because you shouldn’t let the computer dictate what you can or cannot do, nor should Blender do that for you.
It seems to me as though Pablo has a very biased opinion and weighs the arguments unequally, sure Blender does not have to follow the industry standard, but that does not mean it may be nice if it did every while and then. Sort of closed vs open frame of mind if you ask me as he is only arguing why he should cater more towards high-poly sculpting with arguments that miss the point imo.
Completely agree with his hostile comment remark on community websites though 
6 Likes
I don’t think so. Pablo tries to emphasize that Blender is meant for everyone and every style. The devs have been working on speeding up working with many millions of polygons in Blender for years now, and progress is definitely being made, so the high-poly sculptors are not being forgotten.
6 Likes
Yeah I agree and let me add this…
I haven’t read the original post completely, but what I read shows how demoralizing it can be for development if there’s so much single sided crit out there.
Getting blender to really massively high poly counts is nowhere declared as unwanted. The level of what is possible will increase with reworks and optimizations when other elements have fallen into place, and as long as its not there, some things have to be done differently or are not possible, but I can fully agree upon that blender has a useful state in a quite alot other scenarios.
Improving a software involves alot of things and measurable progress here is not linear over time. No need to confuse status quo and target state.
7 Likes
To be honest for me its nearly possible to do my stylized realistic work in blender without hassles. He already has some perf updates and the brush management would be a big thing. (brush with texture without lagging…)
Nice to have features are sculpt layers and the rest can only improve and a streamlined pipeline benefits all.
Not sure though what vertex sculpt colors is doing but i guess its waiting for the dyntopo update.
3 Likes