The big Blender Sculpt Mode thread (Part 1)

Don’t they consult Pro artists working as sculpters, instead of coders or sculpting hobbyst ? Because those are their main clients if we can say like that, they are paid to make sculpting better for them.

Unfortunatelly this gives more reasons to stay with Zbrush.

1 Like

I’m also still a ZB user next to Blender and 3D-Coat, but if Maxon turns out to shake things up by forcing ZB users to a pricey subscription model, I’ll stick with my perpetual ZB 2022 license, while hoping Blender Sculpt Mode will further improve soon.

1 Like

Same about pricing.
I was mainly stating that who decides what is best about sculpting features should not come from Blender developpers but from exterior pro sculptors.

Perhaps the issue is most pro sculptors use Zbrush indeed, and there is not enough pro sculptors using Blender sculpt mode to have lot more voice weight.

Let’s hope some great features will get back or get replaced by better ones.


Instant ban… :smile:


stating that who decides what is best about sculpting features should not come from Blender developpers but from exterior pro sculptors

In my own experience, it isn’t that developers are ‘deciding’ what should and shouldn’t be a feature in Blender but more often than not it is about how it is designed and implemented in Blender that they focus on, that they are concerned mainly with not breaking other parts or even straying too far away from the overall compatibility with how the internal structure of Blender works. Lots of traffic across the boards concerning the work Pablo did initially came across my email, and sometimes things had to be reworked to fit with the internal code structure and developers let him know. Didn’t stop him from doing a lot of groundbreaking stuff compared with what Blender vanilla sculpt was at, just took longer to get it in correctly.


Hi! anyone can reproduce this bug? with color filter in smooth instead of going right just go left and the magic happens :slight_smile:

Edit: It has been reported already.

1 Like

There is no lack of users giving their opinion.
Developers are building experimental stuff on their suggestions.
And most of time, this experimental stuff does not integrate well into the whole Blender ; because it was inspired by an artist focused on his present goal, who forgot to give also feedback about the whole picture.
A Pro Artist who does not know how Blender handles things may make false assumptions.
A Blender User who does not know how feature is used elsewhere can make others, too.
And often, devs are stuck in the middle.

The main problem is the lack of developers.
By design, they choose to have in one module that is about sculpting and painting and to put one guy in charge to bring coherence to the whole.
That makes sense for the overall design to have a manager in charge of keeping it simple, versatile and powerful.
But it looks like, in practice, the expectation is to have this unique person making all the work.

That is too much work for one guy.
There should be a team of 3 or 4 devs, like for geometry nodes, to assure creation of new Color Attributes, update of texture system to EEVEE/Cycles texture and brushes upgrades and management.

There is no chance that Joe could make transition to Color Attributes satisfying for 3.2, just by himself.
There are too many things that have been just half done by 2.8 design refactor.
Too much technical and bad design debt, he has to deal with.

At this pace, it will take years, just to have a coherent satisfying new design.


Something like this?


Pro artists don’t have to knwo how Blender handle things, it’s not their concern.

I agree with that.
Specially sculpting is a very big feature for movies, games, illustrations and more.

Sometimes software need a better structure and organization, breaking stuff is sometimes necessary to make it more robust, more easy to bring new features, have new features less dependent on others from a development perspective.

1 Like

I strongly disagree, because it leads to useful but incomplete mess tantalizing the user base.


So you say the devs do the wrong thing if they remove feature A, after it existed in some branch. You further say they would be well advised to break feature B, if doing so facilitates implementing feature A properly.

Where feature A happens to be something of great concern/importance to your personal workflow, and feature B happens to be something of little to no concern to your personal workflow.

I guess I misunderstood something here?

greetings, Kologe

Not exactly…
The color spray is a stroke method for color variation yeah… but the way it mixes things is very nice… like, you can paint a dominant color and still introduce color variations… various settings are adjustable ofc… very very powerful…
Not sure how blender is surviving without this… :stuck_out_tongue:

Maybe there’s a chance of survival:eyes:



Joe has been busy today. :+1:


The idea that everything should be integrated first and break everything along the way is actually a lot less efficient in terms of getting the features we want, because it often leads to long periods where barely anything changes due to the refactors and rewrites that have to follow (that does not even count all of the meetings that would have to occur in terms of how to make everything fit better after the fact instead of before, if it can be done at all in a way that is stable and is future proof).

That does not mean the devs. should not break things at all, but it is not unheard of for FOSS teams to look closer at code quality and design after the first big overhaul of the whole app. is done (because they once allowed hacks and bandaids to accumulate to pad the feature set).


I did not say anything of all this.
I don’t know about Blender and it’s code behind or how it is organized and managed.
Perhaps Blender is already well organized about the code, it was just a global statement that among some software i use some got breaking changesbut for the better.

Guys what do you think about replacing Vertex Colors by “Color Attributes” in Object Data Properties pane?
I am afraid many people who don’t follow the development will be confused there isn’t such basic thing as Vertex Colors (term used in whole 3D industry) anymore.
Then even after they will find out it is now Color Attributes and will want to add a layer, this nerdy popup will probably confuse them again - nobody will have idea what to select here (which 3D artist knows what is Domain and Data Type?):
Also doing this procedure of selecting the correct values and confirming the dialog everytime we want to add a layer will quickly become irritating.
At least the default values could be set to Face Corner & Byte Color, as this is what everybody will want, but ideally this should be used straight away without any dialog, with the option to tweak / convert it after the creation if necessary.

Give it a day… also I think you meant “point” not face corner, point domain is what Zbrush uses and is the most common workflow afaik. I agree there might be a way to streamline the creation process though. Presets ?


If you enter vertex paint mode and then paint, corresponding color attribute is created.

Currently, main problem is rather that a second layer is not recognized.
Only one layer can be painted in Vertex Paint mode.

And Face Corner attributes are not recognized as such in Sculpt mode.

Actually, I don’t know what developers want to do.
I don’t know if they want to allow Face Corner painting in Sculpt mode.
Or if they want to allow it only in Vertex Paint mode.
Or if they want to support painting of both domain types in both modes.

Original Pablo’s idea was to replace vertex paint mode by an attribute paint mode with basic brushes.
And advanced painting with complex brushes should be in Sculpt mode.
So, each domain type should be supported in Vertex Paint mode.
And each advanced brush feature should be supported in Sculpt mode. (alpha, accumulate, face corner masking, blur and average brushes for vertex painting, soften, clone and UV mask brushes for texture painting, color gradient, coloring texture…)

Currently, none of those statements is accomplished.
We are still far to have a coherent attribute painting workflow.
We are in the middle of a Work In Progress.

Devs announced that 3D texturing brush was in sculpt mode as a proof of concept but should be moved to texture paint mode as new norm.
But, they recently made a canvas switcher.
That does not really make sense if the goal was just to test behaviour of brush on image texture.
For that, you just need one image.
But if sculpt mode become THE mode where anything is painted, it has to support EVERY domain.
And it has to handle more painting brushes.
If it is not the case, the work done in sculpt mode has to be transferred to other modes.
Anyways, even though all bugs would be removed, current design situation can not be satisfying.
Performance and UX improvements are separated from daily basics of painting workflow.


I consider what you have described as bugs and limitations which will be resolved (I really hope), but what I am talking about in my post is a design change which probably won’t be different in the final release.

Otherwise I agree that Vertex painting is not usable at all in 3.2 Alpha - Sculpt Paint still doesn’t offer the most basic features (like Face Corner paint), and Vertex Paint mode can’t switch between layers.
But it is Alpha, so I expect all of this to be fixed and improved… even though it scaries me a bit that the same developers which broke some very elementary features (like UV / Image performance since 3.1) are now working on new experimental features instead of fixing those first.

1 Like

I suspect that Joe has invested in an espresso machine. :coffee::wink: