In meat space, I use a coffee cup or a mason jar to hold a set of brushes I favor for the task at hand even though I still have the rest of my brushes in a drawer close by. I’d like a way to work like this in Blender, adding a tag icon or clicking a marker to add specific brushes to my “cup” that I can quickly select from while still being able to go back to my “drawer” for a specific brush I may have just gotten recently, adding a tag to that to put it in the “cup”. If it is a special pie menu or a list menu, I don’t know, it’s just the ability ot change my mind and reset what is in my cup is that is important to me.
6 Likes
Yes. There are problems.
If you enable Ignore UVs option and Fast Draw Mode and disable Cleanup buttons, result should look more uniform.
1 Like
Cycling works much better when you have to press shift+b or whatever key. In Blender and the Affinity apps I’m constantly switching the tool-in-cycle instead of switching from one tool to another tool. This especially happens a lot when the system is under heavy load and not immediately responsive. You press B but you’re still on the hand tool, so you press B again, and one more time, and finally you switch to the brush tool but you’re on the 3rd tool in the brush tool list :(.
Tool cycling needs a modifier key to be user-friendly for most people most of the time.
It’s honestly the main reason why I don’t use the toolbar in Blender and why I use the mouse to switch tools in Affinity and why I still keep an ancient copy of photoshop in a virtual machine for when I want to mock up an idea really really really really fast.
1 Like
Can we get the remesh Voxel Size to be a bigger number like it is for dytopo Detail Size?
12 vs 0.003154 !
Fun fact: 1 divided by 317 equals 0.03154!
Wouldn’t it be more user friendly to use a number like 317 instead of 0.003154 ?
We could call it Voxel Multiplier or Voxel Count or Voxel Density or Voxel Detail or something.
4 Likes
It is looking like a serious power play from the BF, especially when considering all of the Zbrush users figuring out what to do with their app’s purchase by Maxon.
Another sign that Blender continues to see more consistency in terms of moving in the right direction.
Great suggestion - you might wanne communicate that with Joe.
Voxel Size is expressed in meters because it is length unit by default.
You just need to change Length unit under Units panel of Scene Properties tab from Meters to Millimeters.
That should change default value from 0.1 meter to 100 millimeters.
You can also increase unit scale.
1 Like
Sounds like zbrush hehehe… except that you put the brushes in your “cup” by hand… 
2 Likes
Yeah. Although one feature that Affinity has is the ability to assign any brush to a specific tool, so you don’t even need to toggle between the tools if you don’t want to. Here’s just a sample from my own brushes where everything is assigned in a way that makes brush management fast and less confusing.
If the Blender devs do decide to have multiple brush tools in the tool bar, I hope that they still make it so that there is a full brush list which show which tool certain brushes belong to.
Yeah, that has always bothered me. There is also that pesky performance bug where changing the voxel size causes severe slowdowns the lower the number is. Funnily enough Pablo Dobarro did a workaround when he designed that on screen UI when dragging on the screen, which has no performance hiccups whatsoever.
This problem is however not just a Voxel Remesher problem. It affects every slider, like when changing the value of a subdiv level in the MultiRes/SubSurf modifiers. Would be nice if the program didn’t update the calculation until after releasing the value. Would make things feel a bit more responsive.
4 Likes
A pretty solid article. These kinds of polish and performance updates I think will make some ZBrush artists more inclined to switch to Blender. Having every system being able to play nice with each other is the kind of thing that will make Sculpt Mode feel a lot more professional.
The merging of vertex colours and the old one into a single system that can be built upon for texture painting will make it easier to build features that benefit more than one workflow at the same time. Bodes well for the other projects that will be the base of Sculpt Mode going forward.
Would have been nice getting some more information regarding MultiRes and brush management, however. Hope we don’t have to wait too long for some solid news.
7 Likes
Great news!
I wonder though: will all of Pablo’s additions make it to the next release as well: Bend mode in Pose tool, live smoothing of masks, divisions of masks to create patterns, and all the other Shift + A, Shift + Alt + A and Shift + W menu functionality in the Sculpt Dev build? The article only discusses Joe’s changes and additions, while 3.0 Sculpt Mode still misses a lot of Pablo’s tools.
11 Likes
Ah…Thanks for the info.
Would be nice to know when we are getting these especially the sculpt colors feature. Would this be possible with Multires now or only dynotopo?
This!
2 Likes
Its planned but currently not there. The inital version will not support multires but later it will.
Regarding the other features in the sculpt roadmap its said the main part of the branch will be ported to master. If its good it gets ported. Also step by step and the first step is the new vertex color feature.
Thanks for the clarification. Don’t know why Multires isn’t getting enough attention as dynotopo but I am glad to know it will get vertex color support in future.
1 Like
My guess is because the very idea of creating a complete character/creature model (that can be animated) without having to worry about resolution or even topology could be seen as true, next generation, modeling technology that would place Blender in a leading position compared to other complete DCC apps. I know ZBrush and 3D Coat has this type of modeling, but you don’t get a complete animation/rendering/vfx toolset or something like Geometry Nodes with it.
1 Like
Animation without worrying about resolution or topology? I am not sure I follow, take animation of characters for example and the importance of edge loops, are you saying that there is a possibility that that wouldn’t be an issue in future unless you are talking about machine learning that can retopologize these meshes accurately and in a matter of seconds/minutes.
Multires has a particular advantage over dynotopo which is it switches to the lowest subdivision when moving the viewport which makes performance very manageable for very high poly mesh especially when sculpting details, dynotopo doesn’t do that.
As for Geometry nodes, Its powerful but not everybody wants to tinker with it tbh. Some people just want to do things the way they are used to 
A mesh produced entirely with Dyntopo is made out of triangles. As long as you use brushes like topology rake to make the triangles as even as possible (in a mesh that is appreciably dense), and as long as you make use of modifiers like corrective smooth, then you can get some reasonable deformations. Blender also has smoothing operations for weight painting which should help as well. I will note that I do not think the BF has even come close to exploring topology-independent deformation tech based on what is out there now.
I talk about this being true, next generation, asset creation because it obliterates the old-school step-by-step methodology where to go to the next task means the last one is locked in (which meant a lot of pre-planning is needed for high-resolution models and changing your mind is costly as far as time goes). The new way means there is no major cost to just trying things (because you can just undo it and continue on).
To note, that new way is already here to an extent thanks to Geometry Nodes and the concept of ‘painting sculpts’ with Cycles microdisplacement (where you can even create deformable global coords to unlock procedural textures as a way to get detail).
1 Like
Question though Is dynotopo as performant as Multires. I don’t think so. Thats why a lot of high poly sculpt artists use it or has Dynotopo become even faster than Multires even for detail sculpting like skin pores or wrinkles for example?
Can you share some examples of these topology-independent deformation tech?
Another thing is a lot 3d artists use Blender for games assets so Multires comes in handy. Dynotopo would always require retopology after which can be time consuming though I noticed the newer sculpt dev builds now allow using dynotopo on meshes that have uvs (uvs are no longer destroyed when converting) which is awesome.
I get what you are saying about how flexible dynotopo is. The issue is that there is no optimization when using very high polycount like Multires. This guy explains why using subdivisions in Zbrush is better than sculpting in Dynamesh:
And I also see locked in as a good thing. Flexibility is good but sometimes you could get carried away with sculpting so much details and such that retopology and animating it becomes a nightmare. Thats why preproduction and planning and locking down things is important.
3 Likes