Blender's sculpting tool

[Arcturus]

I've heard that Blender has sculpting tool similar to zbrush's so thought I'm gonna try it.

There's not much to show yet. Legs will be difficult to do. From technical point of view this is one big mess. I lost symmetry and I don't know how to fix it. But it is quite fun.

[Tels]

I've heard that Blender has sculpting tool similar to zbrush's so thought I'm gonna try it.

There's not much to show yet. Legs will be difficult to do. From technical point of view this is one big mess. I lost symmetry and I don't know how to fix it. But it is quite fun.

 

Erm, yes, our particles are bad, but why do you think we need *that* detailed drops of water?

[OrbWeaver]

I don't think you can generate an animal from scratch using sculpting; you would need to create the basic shape with extrusion/subsurf modelling and then use the sculpt tool to add detail.

[Renzatic]

On one hand, good job so far. On the other hand, that's one lumpy fucking horse.

 

Edit: Out of curiosity, how easy is Blender to get into if you're coming from a Lightwave/Modo background? I've always been interested in the program (it's free and all), but looking at shots of that overcomplicated UI brings back bad Max memories and makes me shy away. Despite that, is it fairly user friendly?

[sparhawk]

Blender has become much more user friendly since it went open source. It still requiers some learning of the shortcuts, but personally I think it's well worth the effort.

For example UV mapping is so easy in Blender, that you have to buy additional plugins for other 3D apps to match it.

[OrbWeaver]

Blender is to 3D modelling what Vi is to text editing: not particularly easy to learn, but once you have it is extremely powerful and fast to use.

[sparhawk]

More like Xemacs than VI.

[OrbWeaver]

Yeah, but Emacs sucks and is only used by gays. Vi is where it's at.

[SneaksieDave]

Now that's rare form! Made me smile.

[sparhawk]

VI is the truck. Xemacs is the Mercedes.

[Crispy]

Excellent analogy; Emacs is clearly the wrong choice when you have any decent-sized workload.

 

(Really, I'm on a third side here - I don't use either vi or emacs. Give me an ordinary GUI text editor any day. )

[jdude]

Lol, oh dear TDM team is at it again!

 

I'm going to have to get my act together and learn blender so I can get some objects for maps made. Maybe end up doing some ANIMATION !!

[Arcturus]

I don't think you can generate an animal from scratch using sculpting; you would need to create the basic shape with extrusion/subsurf modelling and then use the sculpt tool to add detail.

 

You can use extrusion after you start sculpting. But yeah, that makes too much mess so I redid the whole thing. I made a basic model and then started sculpting but it was so bad that I ended in doing legs and tail only with sculpting tools. I use subdivide to increase poly numbers and then use draw tool. So it's still one big mess. But it looks quite good. I couldn't keep it symmetrical so I had to chop it in half and mirror. I still have to add all the details.

[Tels]

Excellent analogy; Emacs is clearly the wrong choice when you have any decent-sized workload.

 

(Really, I'm on a third side here - I don't use either vi or emacs. Give me an ordinary GUI text editor any day. )

 

Emacs is a nice OS, it just lacks a decent text editor

[Arcturus]

I consider high poly model done. Now I "only" need to make low poly, textured version. I assume that it won't be a problem to convert it to md5?

[Tels]

I consider high poly model done. Now I "only" need to make low poly, textured version.

 

Wow, nice, how many polys is it?

 

Also, you mentioned "mirroring" the model. So a question from someone who has no idea about modeling, why would you make a perfect symetric model? For reducing storage, or polys? Or for easier texturing?

 

And wouldn't that mean you could never do a one-eared head, for instance?

[Arcturus]

It's 2.360.262 polys, but I didn't make full use of them. I want game model to use the same texture on both sides to save memory space, just like current horse model does. So I wanted to make it symmetrical from the begining. I turned on the symmetry on x axis, but it never stayed perfectly symmetrical for too long. Probably when I selected certain areas to increase polys number on them it screwed up. Anyway, poly reducer script seems to give a non symmetrical result. I will probably cut the model, do the uv mapping, texturing and poly reducing and in the end mirror.

[Tels]

It's 2.360.262 polys, but I didn't make full use of them. I want game model to use the same texture on both sides to save memory space, just like current horse model does. So I wanted to make it symmetrical from the begining. I turned on the symmetry on x axis, but it never stayed perfectly symmetrical for too long. Probably when I selected certain areas to increase polys number on them it screwed up. Anyway, poly reducer script seems to give a non symmetrical result. I will probably cut the model, do the uv mapping, texturing and poly reducing and in the end mirror.

 

Giving the many hundred megabytes of texture we use, I think using another 2 on the "other half of the horse" won't make a difference - but it would allow us to have a hose that does look different on each side Like it having a white left front hoof or something.

[Arcturus]

Giving the many hundred megabytes of texture we use, I think using another 2 on the "other half of the horse" won't make a difference - but it would allow us to have a hose that does look different on each side Like it having a white left front hoof or something.

 

But then 1024 x 1024 pixels might be a lttle too small. Our character models use 1024x1204 + 512 x 512. Jewellery box uses 1024x1024 + 512x512 + 512x512. Same texture on both sides means better resolution without increasing image size.

[Tels]

But then 1024 x 1024 pixels might be a lttle too small. Our character models use 1024x1204 + 512 x 512. Jewellery box uses 1024x1024 + 512x512 + 512x512. Same texture on both sides means better resolution without increasing image size.

 

True. But could we use 2048x2048?

[greebo]

If I was to choose between four times the texture size or a symmetrical model, I'd go for the symmetrical model. 2048x2048 is just too damn huge.

[Tels]

If I was to choose between four times the texture size or a symmetrical model, I'd go for the symmetrical model. 2048x2048 is just too damn huge.

 

Are you afraid of big numbers? It is only 4 Mbyte. My D3 process uses 580 Mbyte of memory when I use compressed textures, and over 1100 Mbyte when I use uncompressed normalmaps 4 Mbyte more of less won't make a dent, if this would improve the model.

 

But I agree, a symmetrical horse would save 3 MByte memory and not look too much worse. We'd rather improve the textures for some wood walls

[greebo]

For what it's worth, a 2048x2048 diffuse will take 12 MB (3x 4MB for RGB). A 1024x1024 TGA is "only" using 3 MB.

[Tels]

For what it's worth, a 2048x2048 diffuse will take 12 MB (3x 4MB for RGB). A 1024x1024 TGA is "only" using 3 MB.

 

Roughly one fourth of that as DDS

[OrbWeaver]

Also, you mentioned "mirroring" the model. So a question from someone who has no idea about modeling, why would you make a perfect symetric model? For reducing storage, or polys? Or for easier texturing?

 

It's easier to model and texture that way. If the model is not mirrored, then you have to manually perform each modelling operation twice. You can always "de-mirror" the model at the end and add fine detail separately on each side.