PDA

View Full Version : Significant Modeler improvements



hrgiger
01-07-2014, 09:41 AM
I know its brought up often but we all know that modeler hasnt seen signifcant growth in the last several years. I just wonder if real improvements are even a priority in development. It seems to me that a lot of growth in LightWave has been focused on Layout and it was mentioned before that they dont have a lead architect for modeler and David Ikeda I presume is spending a lot of his time now on chronosculpt so what hope is there that the next few years will make any difference for us modelers out here?

Yes i know, some new modeling tools were added in 11.5 but as far as i know these were just tools added on top of existing architecture. A few of the new tools use gizmos but those are specific to those tools so I guess no API was written for gizmos so new tools wont be able to take advatange of them. New tools are good but Modeler doesnt suffer from lack of tools, but it does suffer from things it lacks that ALL tools should be able to take advatage of like gizmos, a workplane, more action centers (like local being a personal favorite), constraints (like background or surface), snapping for all tools.... LWCAD fills in some gaps but it cant make up for everything.

MarcusM
01-07-2014, 10:19 AM
In short, in my opinion we should not expect nothing really special in modeling from LW in this year...just small improvements what other software already have. Modeler must be written from beginning but there is not manpower for this.
I do most modeling and this can be reason to look in free time on other modeling tool... (still hope something is going behing closed door with Modeler :) )
Big improvements in modeling direction (also FBX exporter) can prompt me to upgrade to LW 12.

VonBon
01-07-2014, 11:14 AM
ugh....... can we talk about something else please that hasn't been spoken about 50-11 million times already?
Newtek will get to modeler when they finish with Layout. Repeating the same thing over and over is not going
to help in any manner whatsoever. This thread is not going to be constructive at all. It would be better to start
another thread about the tools we want and be "detailed" on how we want them to work in Modeler and with Layout.

hrgiger
01-07-2014, 11:52 AM
ugh....... can we talk about something else please that hasn't been spoken about 50-11 million times already?
Newtek will get to modeler when they finish with Layout.

what do you mean by finish with layout? there is no finish to layout. as soon as they put in things they want to now there will be new things to implement. Some of us just want to know that modeler will receive some priority at some point and thats why we have these discussions. youre free to ignore the thread.

VonBon
01-07-2014, 12:16 PM
Don't take my post the wrong way Giger, I understand where your coming from. I just think that
this thread has been posted many times before and that having a constructive conversation would
help more than repeating previous threads about our dissatisfaction with the lack of love for Modeler.

I was assuming that since a lot of attention has been given to Layout that maybe they are
going through a phase of updating Layout and that when LW3DG is finished with this "Phase" of updating
Layout, maybe it will be Modelers turn. LW3DG will follow the road map that they have decided upon, so
we can ride along on the journey and complain the whole way or we can be constructive along the way,
cause however they decide to get to where we are going, they have to drive by Modeler to get there.
So lets prepare for when we ride through Modeler.

jwiede
01-07-2014, 07:19 PM
I was assuming that since a lot of attention has been given to Layout that maybe they are
going through a phase of updating Layout and that when LW3DG is finished with this "Phase" of updating
Layout, maybe it will be Modelers turn.

"Layout's turn" has gone on for over a decade, so naturally I have doubts that "Modeler's turn" will ever come without some form of external intervention.

hrgiger, c'mon! You know better! No kneepads, no service, no attention. :devil:

jwiede
01-07-2014, 07:29 PM
(stupid forum... double-post deleted by author)

prometheus
01-07-2014, 07:36 PM
:neener:why work on one road when there are two roads carrying vehicles that need to drive on these roads, comon guys, Im pretty sure they work on both at the same time, they do what serves lightwave as a unit the best, so individual work on modeler and layout together strengthen lightwave as a unit.
when some small changes was released with the tweak tool and some other in the 11.6 releases, they did mention that it was the tip of the iceberg for
future modeling tools..so we have to wait a little more and see.

And as mentioned..I think some guys been discussing this ..a lot.

And if you want more guys whining..here I am..why work on a decent modeler when we havenīt gotten any hypervoxels attention for years,no significant attention anyway.:neener:
It will all come together in due time I guess, just a matter of time as the rest of the events in universe :)

By the way, I could use a sculpt brush in modeler, And in Layout which will make a big difference for some scenery stuff:) so please work on that..a tool that can drive on both roads)
Then we got fiber fx styling ...and then....STOP/Censored...STOP...Malfunction, Brain signal overload, signing off.:jester:

colkai
01-08-2014, 03:36 AM
Don't take my post the wrong way Giger, I understand where your coming from. I just think that
this thread has been posted many times before

Herein lies the problem. The fact that such threads HAVE been done so many times without any resulting improvements I think does rather lend itself to the point at hand.

Alas, I agree it is futile to have such threads, simply based on the fact that historically, Newek have demonstrated such "lack of love" for modeller. I think we just have to accept that we need to stick with what we've got currently until such time, if ever, that focus moves to modeller.

Or of course, add tools to the pipeline to fill the gaps, such as the new 3rd party plugins and, yes, I know, the "L" word, LWCAD. :D

kadri
01-08-2014, 03:55 AM
I have read since years this kind of threads i forget how many times.
Don't take my post the wrong way too Giger .
Guys who use especially modeller more are actually right to ask these kind of things.
Maybe the future depends on the next 1-2 LW releases.
And i think they know this very much.

So much depressing that may sound especially to the guys who work on Lightwave i was actually not so hopeful since many years until the last 2 releases .
I think they are doing just fine :)
Just as this thread says only modeler needs more attention.
I think it will be mostly reading and writing for nothing in threads like this!
I doubt that we will hear anything substantial until the next release announcement :)

hrgiger
01-08-2014, 05:28 AM
Apologies sincerely if its annoying to see threads like this pop up regularly. But understand its equally worriesome to see modeler's lack of attention. This is not necessarily about new tools but more about if there's any plans to keep modeler relevant. As I mentioned, the new tools added in 11.5, while well done in my opinion, seem to just be built on top of existing architecture. Instead of creating a gizmo type in the SDK and then writing tools to use that(since not even all of the new tools have gizmos), they just added handles to a few of the tools. Which suggests to me that theyre not making deep changes to modeler.

And yes, i have no idea what theyre working on and maybe they will surprise us with the next release of LightWave. Maybe they have decided to go a whole new direction with modeling in LW, maybe theyre creating architecture in Layout for modeling, I have no idea... I just want to mention this concern now because theres going to be some disappointment from a number of users if LW12 comes and goes and modeler is once again pushed to the side.

prometheus
01-08-2014, 05:42 AM
Apologies sincerely if its annoying to see threads like this pop up regularly. But understand its equally worriesome to see modeler's lack of attention. This is not necessarily about new tools but more about if there's any plans to keep modeler relevant. As I mentioned, the new tools added in 11.5, while well done in my opinion, seem to just be built on top of existing architecture. Instead of creating a gizmo type in the SDK and then writing tools to use that(since not even all of the new tools have gizmos), they just added handles to a few of the tools. Which suggests to me that theyre not making deep changes to modeler.

And yes, i have no idea what theyre working on and maybe they will surprise us with the next release of LightWave. Maybe they have decided to go a whole new direction with modeling in LW, maybe theyre creating architecture in Layout for modeling, I have no idea... I just want to mention this concern now because theres going to be some disappointment from a number of users if LW12 comes and goes and modeler is once again pushed to the side.

So many of us having opinions, I will be really dissapointed if nothing is improved with hypervoxels, and some model stuff of course.
But that is something for the lightwave team to swet upon, we can always choose other alternatives.

Michael

hrgiger
01-08-2014, 05:47 AM
Yes, Hypervoxels(and the particle system) in LW are long overdue for serious refinement or outright replacement. And of course everyone has that particular area of the software they would love to see improved. But modeling is just such a fundamental aspect of working in 3D, its just a bit disheartning seeing it not receiving much needed attention.

prometheus
01-08-2014, 05:59 AM
Yes, Hypervoxels(and the particle system) in LW are long overdue for serious refinement or outright replacement. And of course everyone has that particular area of the software they would love to see improved. But modeling is just such a fundamental aspect of working in 3D, its just a bit disheartning seeing it not receiving much needed attention.

Oh..yes, I forgot the particle stuff, and volumetric handling overall, new enviroment to skip skytracer and more match of a ogo taiki,ozone style environment:)
And yes...you are right about the fundamental parts...and I feel your frustration.
I do wonder though what has been the policy for neglecting the modeling tools, is it because of it has been having such a good reputation as a modeler, that even though it is old, it has been working fine and still is, so they simply havenīt had that as a priority?
Could it be the change of direction and the misshap with core that is the cause of a further delay of the attention to modeling?
I think both of those speculations of mine might be the case, but I am just speculating that is, and that wonīt help bring clarity to when the improvements will show up.
I donīt think Rob Powers will jump in and state ..look now, itīs on itīs way, and with lw 12 we will see this and that, doesnīt seem to be his policy.

But didnīt you get any type of feedback on the threads from the creator of chronosculpt who posted a lot about the newer tech they are working on, didnīt that give some idea on what they are working on
concerning the modeling aspects?
In the winter session presentation on lightwave youtube channel, Rob did some statements about the issues of weaknesses when not being able to model in layout, and they are working on it to eliminate that..if
possible that is.

kosmodave
01-08-2014, 06:07 AM
I don't mind seeing these threads opened because Modeler is so neglected it really needs working on and I mean really working on and not just shoehorning a couple of toys onto the old code.

After some time struggling with the economic down turn I finally had the money to buy into Lightwave 11 which being a charter member is at relatively low cost and I even contacted customer support to veryfy the process. In the end I decided not to as I spend 90% of my time in modeler and am currently struggling with slowdowns on a 100K poly object, so no updates to modeler then no updates to any of it for me.

Also to be honest I am still bitter about having LW10 dumped on me after the Core fiasco and really cant bring myself to invest any more with newtek at the moment, so I guess I will loose the so say Charter upgrade benifit as well. Probably find myself moving elsewhere in the future if anywhere but perhaps LW12 or 13 will tempt me back but I'm not holding my breath as I don't believe Newtek has the resources to develope three aps at a reasonable rate.

Dave.

hrgiger
01-08-2014, 06:50 AM
But didnīt you get any type of feedback on the threads from the creator of chronosculpt who posted a lot about the newer tech they are working on, didnīt that give some idea on what they are working on
concerning the modeling aspects?
In the winter session presentation on lightwave youtube channel, Rob did some statements about the issues of weaknesses when not being able to model in layout, and they are working on it to eliminate that..if
possible that is.

Im not really wanting feedback in this case. I guess it was just state the idea (again) that modeler needs some attention.

Concerning David Ikeda's comments, things I gathered from him was that it is possible they will use the Hydra tech from CS in LightWave at some point in the future. At the same time he also stated that his work on CS pulled him away on work being done in modeler and that they did not have a lead architect in modeler so that sounds like both good and bad news.

On Rob's presentation in Japan- his comments regarding layout and modeling were limited to the concepts of camera matching (maybe corrective morphs?i dont recall) but nothing of any significance on that front. He did make it a point to mention that even though he was pointing out the benefits of seperated applications (modeler and layout) that it doesnt mean they arent changing things to eliminate the weaknesses of the split app approach.

tyrot
01-08-2014, 07:07 AM
hr ...i know and share your frustration.. I think modeler wont receive any update. As you mention lack of lead architect is the main issue.

Now who can be the lead architect if Ikeda feels more love for CS. I guess LWCad's Victor should take over this role. I mean may be as a community we can support Victor for working not for Lwcad but whole modeler. Ikeda must work on CS ( after Ryan s review i have lots of love for CS and sky is limit there)

Victor and couple of japanese friends may alter the dark fate of modeler. I think this thread is not useless at all. Something must be done.

Lewis
01-08-2014, 08:12 AM
u It would be better to start
another thread about the tools we want and be "detailed" on how we want them to work in Modeler and with Layout.

Not really, Been there, done that (in details comparisons, vidoee, explanations...) on forums, on regular channels, private channels etc etc. and been doing it for years but to no AVAIL :(. Their Reasons for not doing it all these years? Well I know few, but won't really tell them here, but they to know why and they just wont tell it publicly either.

VonBon
01-08-2014, 09:20 AM
Not really, Been there, done that (in details comparisons, vidoee, explanations...) on forums, on regular channels, private channels etc etc. and been doing it for years but to no AVAIL :(. Their Reasons for not doing it all these years? Well I know few, but won't really tell them here, but they to know why and they just wont tell it publicly either.

I'm thinking that the problem is in the foundational architecture of Modeler which makes it
hard to improve upon in the way that's needed. Maybe they will start a new Modeler from
scratch based on Chronosculpt architecture or start to move Modeling tools into Layout.

Lewis
01-08-2014, 09:26 AM
Too many times I`ve heard that it is `hard`. Sure it is but it is hard to work in it now and wont be any easier as the time goes and more features get needed and models progress more and more on higher polycount an we still can`t cope with them in modeler.

Or maybe the should work only on parts that aren`t hard to fix/change?

GandB
01-08-2014, 09:36 AM
This is one of the primary reasons I haven't updated from 9.6, nor do I plan to in the future. I mainly model game assets; between 9.6 and Blender there isn't any real need for me to update at all. I have seen MUCH more love with M*D*'s modeler, than I ever have with LW's. In addition, they have actually come out asking (Foundry here) for game screenshots and art! They've worked closely with the Unity crowd. They actually give a (insert explicative here) about game artists. That's another area that has been kicked to death here...with zero results.

It's clear that the LW3DG is focused on VFX and arch viz (thanks in large part to LWCAD), and not much else. The "wait till next iteration", "we love our game devs", and other such statements are well past empty verbiage. I want an update to Modeler as well, I'm going to get it when I purchase a copy of M*D*. Eventually there won't be much need to even own LW (especially with the way Blender is going).

You can tell people like myself the usual line of "then go over there if it suits you"; but that won't help NT bring in any more income from this venture we call the LW3DG. I try not to get too bent out of shape about it, mainly because it affects me little; it's not my company that will sink or swim. It's mainly my time spent on something. The excuses have been over for some time now; it's time to "put up or shut up". ;)

colkai
01-08-2014, 10:04 AM
GandB, I am very much in the same boat, I still can do things in Modeller, but as I say, I have zero faith in Newtek where modeller is concerned.
Following a coment someone made elsewhere about one of my posts, I did a search back, sadly, the story has not changed in a decade, regardless of the platitudes and assurances that Newtek are "aware" of things. Seems they have, after all, been aware for quite some time.

It's not like they can say "it can't be done", because the 3rd party developers, even WITH the limitations they are operating within, are more than capable of getting a few more horsepower from modeller. Unless of course, the developers at Newtek are not up to the same calibre? Too many things to juggle with too little resources? Either way, as you say, for any money to head their way, the yhave to show they can produce the goods. 'Cause bless her heart, my missus even offered to help me upgrade if "Lightwave was still worth it to me". Yep, she's a keeper! :D

jeric_synergy
01-08-2014, 10:26 AM
What about SockPuppet? When are we going to get that back? {/snark}

It's a bit of a slap in the face to the devs that the improvements they DID make seem to get short-shrift: I know that, alzheimery as I am, I often forget the new tools: the new Transform is extremely powerful, and it takes videos like Erikalst's to remind me what you can do with it. I feel like a bit of schmuck about it.

More active modelers like Lewis and Giger probably don't have this problem, but maybe we can (in 2014) concentrate on the positives that we've been handed lately (for FREE) and secretly pray (figuratively, I'm atheist/buddhist) that the dev team is creating the INFRASTRUCTURE that will allow Modeler to be extended smoothly (and large chunks migrated into Layout please). (Damn, see? It's hard not to backslide.)

Or, at least to the end of January. ;)

GandB
01-08-2014, 10:34 AM
Wow; she IS a keeper. ;) Perhaps you can convince her of a side-grade (unless you already have it in your arsenal). It gets to a point where you say to yourself: "I can't make them help themselves". It's sad really; they aren't keeping up with things, and it has gotten to the point where the lack of modeler updates/fixes coupled with the non-unified (I know, I know...it's coming "someday") interface....like every other program out there (it's cute and unique...but that's not an actual selling point anymore)....is going to really put a dent in LW3DG's user base. I really believe that.

Like I've said numerous times before; if we didn't care, we wouldn't bother talking about it. But, as I sit here and shrug my shoulders, it's out of our hands. I've been clinging on long enough, in the hopes that they will pull their head out of their 4th-point of contact. I had thought that CORE (surprised it's not a censored word yet) was finally going in the direction they needed, even with a few users crying out that it needed to stay the same. We all know how that ended.

I really hate to badmouth Rob and Crew, as I know they are working hard with what they were given; but people aren't going to wait around forever, especially when a certain free program is close on their heels and it's time to decide whether that upgrade money is better spent elsewhere. As far as telling another user that they shouldn't post about a certain topic...no matter how well-traveled it is; there's really no need to click on the thread at all.

As one of my old Sergeants used to say to us: "The beatings will continue, until moral improves". ;)

hrgiger
01-08-2014, 10:35 AM
hr ...i know and share your frustration.. I think modeler wont receive any update. As you mention lack of lead architect is the main issue.

Now who can be the lead architect if Ikeda feels more love for CS. I guess LWCad's Victor should take over this role. I mean may be as a community we can support Victor for working not for Lwcad but whole modeler. Ikeda must work on CS ( after Ryan s review i have lots of love for CS and sky is limit there)

Victor and couple of japanese friends may alter the dark fate of modeler. I think this thread is not useless at all. Something must be done.

Bringing Viktor onboard would be HUGE for LW3DG and for modeling in LightWave. Ive even seen a number of Modo users acknowledge just how powerful LWCAD is. Unfortunately I dont know how likely of a scenario that is. Im sure he does ok on his own, it might not be to his benefit to join LW3DG. But it would be nice if they had a lead architect who could make changes to the modeler SDK as necessary.

Oedo 808
01-08-2014, 11:54 AM
Their Reasons for not doing it all these years? Well I know few, but won't really tell them here, but they to know why and they just wont tell it publicly either.

I can only surmise that latterly it was because once the Core roadmap was conceived, Modeler was as good as a legacy program, if there are other reasons that would have persisted to affect modelling in Core I would certainly like to hear them.

I know that it's not always easy to say what you think or know, but if you reflect on it for a moment you will realize that my need to hear this gossip outweighs any confidences you might need to keep. :D

Lewis
01-08-2014, 01:19 PM
I know that it's not always easy to say what you think or know, but if you reflect on it for a moment you will realize that my need to hear this gossip outweighs any confidences you might need to keep. :D

I can tell you this, it's not gossip and it's not Core, at leaset not main reasons. it's actually sad story :(. But it's out of our hands and ther ei sno point on being constructive aynmore, they got so many constructive stuff in past and very little was done in that direction form their side (modelng wise not just modeler but modeling in general - hint unification) so untill they decide they are serious about it (modelinh in general and unification) we are just wasting our breath and they will do what they want anyway.

bobakabob
01-08-2014, 01:34 PM
I can only surmise that latterly it was because once the Core roadmap was conceived, Modeler was as good as a legacy program, if there are other reasons that would have persisted to affect modelling in Core I would certainly like to hear them.

I know that it's not always easy to say what you think or know, but if you reflect on it for a moment you will realize that my need to hear this gossip outweighs any confidences you might need to keep. :D

There's a future for Modeler when you consider the sophistication of LWCAD tools and the new 3D Powers plugins which take boolean modelling to a new (interactive and SubD) level in Lightwave.

Metamesh in some ways is superior to the fundamentals of ZBrush Insertmesh where you have to subdivide your models into millions of Polys in order to create decent - but non interactive - booleans.

However in the age of Zbrush, Modeler should at least be able to handle giga poly models. I agree with hrgiger that it would be great to see the app given serious attention not just by 3rd parties but by its own original developers.

GandB
01-08-2014, 01:41 PM
Well (as always) the ball's in their court. I will say though; that there is a shift away from current AD setups, especially for individuals who are new to game art on all fronts. It is a good time to start attracting new talent, as well as older dogs in the industry. There have been NUMEROUS layoffs in Studios in the last few years. I would imagine a good segment of that population are looking to start fresh either as freelancers, or potential start-ups. Granted; many of them hold their own copies of tools that they've used throughout. But many artists are growing tired of AD's upgrade policies, as well as AD in general. This blip isn't going to last forever.

However....I'm spinning my wheels here again. ;)

hrgiger
01-08-2014, 02:14 PM
Metamesh in some ways is superior to the fundamentals of ZBrush Insertmesh where you have to subdivide your models into millions of Polys in order to create decent - but non interactive - booleans.


Well that's not actually true about Insertmesh. I assume you're talking about joining your mesh or subtracting meshes which is a function of dynamesh. Dynamesh is a concept creation tool and as such, the point is not to have millions of polygons and is ideally targeted at much lower levels of subdivision.

Metamesh looks very nice but if it was characters I was modeling, I would still prefer Zbrush. Metamesh, from what I saw in the previews for it tends to create a lot of triangles where it is joining meshes together. In all likelihood, you might not be creating the best polyflow for deforming characters if you are joining meshes at articulation points ( like joining a hand mesh to a forearm for instance).

bobakabob
01-08-2014, 03:09 PM
Well that's not actually true about Insertmesh. I assume you're talking about joining your mesh or subtracting meshes which is a function of dynamesh. Dynamesh is a concept creation tool and as such, the point is not to have millions of polygons and is ideally targeted at much lower levels of subdivision.

Metamesh looks very nice but if it was characters I was modeling, I would still prefer Zbrush. Metamesh, from what I saw in the previews for it tends to create a lot of triangles where it is joining meshes together. In all likelihood, you might not be creating the best polyflow for deforming characters if you are joining meshes at articulation points ( like joining a hand mesh to a forearm for instance).

Yes, to clarify I was referring to ZB Dynamesh, which as far as I know is the only way to apply Insert Mesh. My preference is to keep meshes as basic as possible. One disadvantage in ZB is that in order to create Metamesh style booleans you have to ramp models up to huge polycounts in order to preserve definition. Not ideal - as you say it's better suited for lower poly creations.

There is the option of decimating the mesh into tris in ZB to make it more manageable for export - not so great for animation. Zremesher is an alternative. As good as it is it will never reduce a mesh back to its original simplicity. Also booleans in Zbrush still feel a little clunky and subtractions can be unpredictable.

The beauty of Metamesh in Lightwave is that it facilitates booleans on a base mesh - interactively - so you can avoid going round the houses inZbrush. You may end up with a few tris but these can be cleaned up if necessary. Unions and subtractions seem to result in very tidy geometry even when combining meshes with different resolutions.

I wouldn't be without Zbrush for sculpting and texturing - it's a liberating, creative tool. But for all it's sophistication ZB lacks the fundamentals of Modeler and its elegant immediacy in dealing with the raw basics of points, edges and polys. This is an advantage that LW3DG should build on.

kosmodave
01-08-2014, 03:45 PM
There's a future for Modeler when you consider the sophistication of LWCAD tools and the new 3D Powers plugins which take boolean modelling to a new (interactive and SubD) level in Lightwave.

Metamesh in some ways is superior to the fundamentals of ZBrush Insertmesh where you have to subdivide your models into millions of Polys in order to create decent - but non interactive - booleans.

However in the age of Zbrush, Modeler should at least be able to handle giga poly models. I agree with hrgiger that it would be great to see the app given serious attention not just by 3rd parties but by its own original developers.


No real future really, as nice as these 3rd party tools are they can be just plain painful once you get a Hi poly count object on the go and need to edit it - That's when modellers creaking architecture comes crashing down.

Dave

hrgiger
01-08-2014, 04:11 PM
Yes, to clarify I was referring to ZB Dynamesh, which as far as I know is the only way to apply Insert Mesh. My preference is to keep meshes as basic as possible. One disadvantage in ZB is that in order to create Metamesh style booleans you have to ramp models up to huge polycounts in order to preserve definition. Not ideal - as you say it's better suited for lower poly creations.

No, that's what I'm trying to tell you, you don't have to ramp up your mesh to huge polycounts. You can cut/merge your meshes and retopo/Zremesh them later, or you can use different ways of creating clean geometry even at low levels of geometry such as polish or panel loops.


There is the option of decimating the mesh into tris in ZB to make it more manageable for export - not so great for animation. Zremesher is an alternative. As good as it is it will never reduce a mesh back to its original simplicity. Also booleans in Zbrush still feel a little clunky and subtractions can be unpredictable.

You would never use Decimate as a way of exporting a mesh for animation. You can use Zremesher or you can manually retopo the model however you choose and make it as simple as you want. Booleans work perfectly fine in Zbrush and I've never had an issue with them.




I wouldn't be without Zbrush for sculpting and texturing - it's a liberating, creative tool. But for all it's sophistication ZB lacks the fundamentals of Modeler and its elegant immediacy in dealing with the raw basics of points, edges and polys. .

I can move around individual vertices in Zbrush if I want but why would you need to? Zbrush excels in dealing with forms in ways that modeler can't even begin to compare with. You can slice, trim Boolean, stretch, reshape, scale, any number of operations to a mesh in Zbrush and its all non-destructive and you can remesh at any time. There would be no advantage of a points/edges/polygon filter in Zbrush like you have in a typical polygon modeler.

VonBon
01-08-2014, 05:16 PM
Just to be clear, I didn't tell anyone that they should not post about a certain topic,
(not my style) but next time I'll do as you said and not click on the thread at all.

GandB
01-08-2014, 05:58 PM
No hard feelings, VonBon; you've been around for awhile, and I respect your opinion. Perhaps I read it wrong; I just think things should be honest and up front here.