EXACTLY. And it’s kinda insane that people seem to have this epiphany every hundred or so posts in this thread as if it’s the first time it’s been said. Every time.
This ain’t really a matter of sculpting for realism vs stylized art. It’s a matter of sculpting super detailed highly representative art pitted against sculpting for abstracted low detailed art. Everything can be “stylized.”
Pores can be stylized. Maybe you need denser polygons to make brush strokey sculptey patterns on a stylized face extra sharp. Look at Dishonored! Those faced are EXTREMELY stylized, and I know my workstation would actually chug if I had to sculpt comparable models in blender. I’ve got 32gb of 1800MHZ ram, a Ryzen 7 3800x, and a 3090. Blender STILL chokes on a mere bust with 5 levels of subd. Imagine a whole body. I think Kent Trammell’s upcoming tutorial may serve to highlight Blender’s weakness in this area tbh. No doubt there’s gonna be a few workarounds to the performance limitations, not to mention he’s also just sculpting a bust, not a full character.
I think not making performance the first and foremost important priority was a massive mistake. I’m happy for the QOL tools we got with the face sets and cool pose tools. I use em regularly! It’s just that QOL tools will only improve the QOL so much if the base Q of the base L is low to begin with.
I mean, shit. We’re all artists, right? We gotta acknowledge that stylization and realism are marketing terms for consumers. We have to know better. Not a single damn person in this thread should be talking about realism vs stylized as a dichotomy. What we create ranges from specific to broad. Representational to abstract. All things in between. The point is asking for tools specifically for modeling “realism” is stupid as hell because that’s not something that can even be objectively defined. And… It’s kinda obvious that everyone should agree that being able to push around hundreds of millions of polygons would be a net positive for everyone regardless of their purposes, right? Some people want to put pores on their huge-eyed pinup girls of questionable looking ages! Some people wanna sculpt a super abstract character or thing that’s made for 3d printing and therefore needs to have the threads and texture of cloth sculpted right in! Right now, performance and the fussyness of managing brush textures makes that all damn near impossible. That limitation has nothing to do with striving for realism.
And Obsurveyor, I don’t think we NEED a dogwhistle for “I want blender sculpting to be as fast as zbrush.” I think referring to that as “realism” is just downright ignorance and naivite. If folks want Blender to perform like zbrush, they should straight up ask for that.
But I don’t think we really need blender to perform like Zbrush. Zbrush’s performance allows for absurdly dense assets that are more than even some feature films need. I think a more sensible expectation of Blender’s sculpting mode would be, like, Mudbox. Mudbox can’t do as much as Zbrush, but it’s an INCREDIBLY user friendly and flexible sculpting tool. It’s a shame Autodesk Old Yeller’d it, because it was the best designed of their products imo. But yeah, Mudbox has sculpt layers that are right out in front of ya with intensity sliders and mute buttons, a sensible outliner that’s actually a lot like Blender’s current one, super easy brush texture management where you can just drag in hundreds of textures at once and it brings em all in, and the ability to sculpt SUPER dense meshes. Not as dense as zbrush, but still denser than Blender by orders of magnitude. If Blender had to absolutely be comparable to any dedicated sculpting suite out there, it should be Mudbox. Imo.