I considered it, but decided against it for a few reasons. Conceptually shape keys and layers are very similar, but I’d eventually like to add support for features that are more sculpt-focused such as colors, masks, layer groups, etc., and it would get quite messy with shape keys because they are primarily an animation tool. They also rely on fairly old code that doesn’t even make use of the modern attribute system.
Thanks! Pretty much the same as sculpting without layers!
I’ll release it for free as a custom build! I wish it could be implemented as an add-on, but add-ons just aren’t powerful enough for these kinds of features where performance is critical.
Well, now I’m afraid of disappointing you! Yeah, it works with multires (it’s shown in the video) but it’s my implementation of multires, which is more similar to what you can find in other software. It doesn’t work with the existing multires modifier.
Thanks! Supporting values outside the 0.00–1.00 range is easy to implement. Transferring data to other meshes can certainly be done, though I’d say it’s not a high priority right now.
Right now it’s based on 5.2, but it’s relatively easy to keep it synced with main.
you are doing incredibly important work right now, and I’m sorry that so much is on your shoulders. God have mercy on your soul
and good on you for doing your own multires, that shit shouldn’t be a modifier anyway because of how directly it should be integrated into sculpt mode lmao
I can only hope the foundation sees this as worthy of merging
For UI consistency, it is at same place as similar option used in other modes.
Shift RMB placing pivot rather quickly. It is useful for translation, only when you want to be very precise, or to go away from surface.
The issue is that when you want to go away from surface and be precise ; most of time, you also want a custom orientation.
I suppose that View orientation will be a satisfying custom orientation, for rotations.
You are very talented. Anyone would hate to see your work go to waste. But if you already think Blender cannot handle large external feature branches, why do you insist on submitting your work as such? If you know someone cannot digest well, and you bring them a lot of food, that is not helping.
As for spinning off the sculpting in Blender into its own separate open source project, that doesn’t make sense. You can make an open source sculpting software at any time. There is no need to take away Blender’s sculpting mode to become another software. All the other open source libraries Blender has integrated, or plan to integrate, take time to do so. I think if you let anyone here choose, they would rather those open source libraries be a part of Blender in the first place, so that they don’t have to be integrated in an extra step. But those open source libraries are not developed or funded by Blender, and so Blender has to spend extra time and efforts to integrate them.
I dont submit large feature branches anymore, that was my mistake. I actually am making a sculpting engine open source project btw, and I expect no problem integrating it into basically all 3d DCC apps (I dont want to roll a standalone app if I can help it) other then Blender. For Blender I have a small PR for custom object modes that I dont expect to get in. Despite being open source Blender is probably the single most closed DCC on the market on a practical level due to its lack of extensibility. It might as well be closed source.
I dont think Blender should delete sculpting support btw, just have a functional enough addon system it can be extracted into a seperate addon project. I imagine we’d end up with three or four such addons which would cross feed each other and perhaps merge into one or two eventually.
On a personal note Blender lacks means for CG researchers to get their work in front of users. We can make plugins for Maya and tons of other software but not Blender. Since I do mostly do research to make my life as an artist easier I dont want to have to build enourmous DCC ecosystems from scratch just because I figured out dyntopo on uv mapped meshes.
That’s good to hear. If your project becomes much better than Blender’s own sculpting mode, maybe it will convince Blender to head towards the direction you want. If some changes are needed to integrate your project, then I imagine it would be no different from integrating other open source libraries.
I do think it is a good thing that different parts in DCC softwares can be improved independently. It is why Blender is integrating OpenPGL, Jolt Physics and whatnot. Blender does not have the resources to continuously every part of itself.
I wish it could be implemented as an add-on, but add-ons just aren’t powerful enough for these kinds of features where performance is critical.
Yeah, it works with multires (it’s shown in the video) but it’s my implementation of multires, which is more similar to what you can find in other software. It doesn’t work with the existing multires modifier.
(no orientation yet tho)…
