[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 8798855767.jpg (64 KB, 659x716)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
Is it more efficient to do hard surface in zbrush or maya?
>>
>>656662
3dsmax
>>
>>656662
It's more fun to do it in zbrush. Subdiv modeling is weird black magic.
>>
Zbrush 'hard surface' modeling is the biggest meme in 3d of all time.
>>
You can zbrush my hard surface any time
>>
you can hard surface model in anything but i'd say max is the best since you can follow the warwick tutorials and get a pretty good understanding of how to make hard edges by grouping edge loops.

maya is also up there now though with the modeling toolkit and Advanced Modeling Techniques tutorials that are basically the warwick one.
>>
>>656688
>Advanced Modeling Techniques tutorials
Link or author name, please?
>>
>>656662
Hey look it's a "realistic" version of some anime robot, adding absolutely nothing of value to the existing material. Why do these brainlet artists even try?
>>
>>656675
This. Everytime someone posts a "hard surface" model made in ZBrush, it's painfully obvious from the shitty bevel radius, die non-smooth surfaces and the retarded choice of shapes. Literally why would anyone do hard surface with a software made for sculpting?
>>
>>656690
Because it's a thousand times easier to create a robot or a helmet than an anatomically correct human face, and you can still call yourself a "character artist".
>>
>>656693
>Literally why would anyone do hard surface with a software made for sculpting?

Professionally: because it's faster/more efficient (like OP asked).

Individually: Because it's FUN. You really think the company you work for, or amateurs give a damn about "bevel radius"? You can create much more interesting forms, details, and iterations much faster then Zbrush, to the point that concept art (though used professionally), isn't needed for personal use, and even if concept art is provided, it's still faster to use Zbrush.
>>
http://gnss.smvi.co/
>>
I think modo is the best for hard surface modeling but if you pirate it they sue you so I will never know.
>>
>>656716
I don't know what you're trying to say, or what even the point of that website is, but I can see some of those designs being used for films or video games EASILY.

What program did they use to pump out so many iterations? Is it Modo Procedural modeling?

Seriously though, how'd you find that website, and what is it?

>>656719
I bought modo indie dirt cheap on steam and I love it for hard surface modeling.

But I now realize how zbrush is used professionally in the industries because it's much faster for larger scope of work and detailing.
>>
>>656720
They are done with Houdini.

https://www.instagram.com/mglhs_com/
>>
>>656720
It's done in Houdini, artist gave no details or information though and it's still WIP.
>>
>>656723
There are a few shots of his network on his Instagram. The basic structure is voronoi.
>>
File: genisis lore.jpg (1.1 MB, 3365x1827)
1.1 MB
1.1 MB JPG
>>656723
>artist gave no details or information though and it's still WIP.

Seems he did give it some lore(?).
It's pretty run of the mill cringe/cliche stuff, but it's not like I could come up with anything better.
>>
>>656731
The concept seems to me like an afterthought, but I would love to get a good look at the nodes.
>>
>>656734
I'm sure it was an afterthought.
>>
>>656693
Z-brush purists. Mostly people who
>just really discovered sculpting and think its the best solution for everything because they can just churn out results and don't understand fundamentals or if the quality is any good or not
They then texture it with the first "metal" textures they find in substance
or
>are lazy
I like a 10k poly count beveled edge as much as the next guy. I guess also it really depends on what you're making. I'm just ranting though I have nothing against zbrush or general zbrush users, just the lazy and amateur ones.
>>
>>656831
I don't get it. Polymodeling hard surfaces feels 100x faster and more efficient to me than having to sculpt and retopo.
>>
>>656832
But can you be as creative when polymodeling?
The thing is sculpting is a much more natural workflow for artists. I think it allows for much more experimentation, trial and error, seeing what works and what not, which arguably results in a more inspired final product.
>>
>>656833
>swallowing the sculpt meme
>>
>>656832
That's because it is.
>>656833
Yes you can be just as creative with subdivision methods. If not more so.
https://www.artstation.com/snefer
https://www.artstation.com/vbulgarov
https://www.artstation.com/devmatt
https://www.artstation.com/tyapkin
If you haven't seen Tor Frick or Vital Bulgarov work, you should take the time to do so. There is a reason nearly all Zbrush 'hard surface' looks the same, it's because the limitations of the tool dictates the design. It is a fallacy to claim that sculpting is a 'more natural workflow'(what does that even mean?). It's an older workflow with a longer tradition and a process refined over centuries of practice. That does not make it more natural, just more understood.
Some people can do decent hard surface work in zbrush, but they primarily use zmodeler, not the sculpting tools. They get the work done but you are deluding yourself if you think it's the best way to do that type of work.
>>
>>656666
fpbp
>>
>>656836
Is zmodeler really that bad when compared to maya or 3dsmax? What would you say has the fastest polymodeling?
>>
>>656848
You can be really fast in Max,Modo,Maya and Blender. In all of them you need to support your workflow with the right scripts and make hotkeys. Pick the one you like the most, dive in and start making the stuff you are passionate about.
>>
>>656852
But what about zbrush's zmodeler? is that too slow or something?
>>
>>656858
Despite a few nice ideas It's just a pain in the ass and it doesn't give you the freedom the others do. Way too many assumptions about workflow. The complete lack of a stack/history is also major negative. Maya's history may be shit but at least it's there.
You don't have to take my word for it. Try it out and see for yourself.
>>
good lord, what a hate boner /3/'s got towards sculpting...
>>
>>656875
It's just one anon as far as I can tell. Others seem to be understanding that there's times and places for both polymodelling and sculpting. But there's just that one anon that keeps going >muh sculpting maymay every time he sees a sculpt.
>>
>>656876
huh
>>
I feel sorry for anyone using zbrush to model hard-surface from scratch... It has one of the worst ui/ux in history that defiles all logic. Workflow is destructive and quickly gets messy when you have many subtools and polygroups. It also involves constant use of obscure techniques or hacks to achive results, it's just plain dumb.

IMO, zbrush is only good for sculpting details to a base mesh or kitbash with IM's.
>>
>>656715
>sculpting
>hard surface
>because it's faster/more efficient
What in gods cock are you smoking? When it comes to speed, efficiency and precision of hard surface it's:
CAD > Modeling > Sculting
>>
>>656929
True, the hard part about it is going from CAD to polygonal models if you need those... I still don't know what's better, whether to retopologize or to just use the CAD model for reference and polymodel from scratch.
>>
>>656875
What? Its everyone being confused why you would sculpt hard surface. The more simple and geometric something gets, the less useful sculpting is for it and the more work you would have to do to make it not look like a sculpt.

>>656832
Like I said its purists. They consist of lazy and or people new to it and see how fast they can get out concepts (that don't really look good or are usable in the real world) and assume its the best way to do anything.

Its a very noticeable thing, especially when people see results that other people have made in zbrush and attribute it to sculpting and the software as opposed to skill. The mindset here is a lot of unironic "the end product is as much due to user skill as it is to user software"

Thats just what it looks like to me desu. I can't speak for /3/ as a whole or people who exclusively sculpt everything as a whole because its still a pretty diverse group of people and theres at least 15 different people on /3/
>>
>>656936
Nah, the looking bad thing and the "being usable in the real world" thing don't have anything to do.
I don't give a shit about games and movies, I just want to sculpt pretty things.
>>
Why is deleting a subtool an undoable operation in zbrush???
>>
So what would be some good modelling (as in not sculpting) tutorials for blender, maya or 3ds max?
Something from scratch, that explains a fluid workflow, not with orthographic references and stuff.
>>
>>657011
Like, look at this, fucking 30 minutes to make a wacom pen is not really something I'm looking forward to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3YTQoIHMUg
>>
>>657012
If you are too impatient for a 30 minute tutorial you should just quit now.
>>
>>657027
>If you are too impatient for a 30 minute tutorial you should just quit now.

Not the tutorial. I mean, if everytime I want to do a hard surface model and I have to spend 30 minutes on every piece of geo the size of a wacom pen, then it's not as efficient and natural as people here are saying.
>>
>>657030
How long do you think it would take to do in ZBrush (and with proper topology) instead? The only faster way would probably be CAD, and still the topo would only be suitable for rendering/static pieces.
>>
>>657030
Theyre right you should quit
>>
File: file.png (8 KB, 260x80)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>657030
Holy shit man, are you fucking retarded? THAT IS A TUTORIAL HE SPENDS MORE TIME TELLING YOU HOW TO DO IT THAN ACTUALLY MODELING.

You know what though, you go ahead and sculpt it. I'm going to say roughly it only took him about 10 minutes to do it without explaining. This is likely an over estimate but i'm being generous for you. Sculpt it in this amount of time.
Requirements
>proof of time spent working on it
>picture perfect proportions to the subject
>fits in the poly budget of pic related (this is the end of the video amount of everything its not even a considerably low number
If you can do it, congratulations! Otherwise like the other guys said, just quit.
>>
>>657030
It's 33 minutes because it's two guy doing a tutorial. Tutorials always take several times longer because of all the explanation involved.
You really should just quit. 3d doesn't sound like it's for you.
>>
am i an idiot for wanting to polymodel even detailed characters simply because i don't wanna retopo?
>>
>>657041
Nah
>>>653905
>>
>>656936
>What? Its everyone being confused why you would sculpt hard surface. The more simple and geometric something gets, the less useful sculpting is for it and the more work you would have to do to make it not look like a sculpt.
You're right.
>>
File: Mechanical_Thumbnail.jpg (319 KB, 553x500)
319 KB
319 KB JPG
>>656929
>When it comes to speed, efficiency and precision of hard surface it's: >CAD > Modeling > Sculting

FOR SIMPLE BOXY GEOMETRIC SHIT.
Sculpted hardsurface is a lot more complex and a lot more in demand in the 3D industry because of its speed and aesthetic flexibility.
>>
File: cki-vang-zbrush-viewport.jpg (523 KB, 1920x1080)
523 KB
523 KB JPG
>>656936
>The more simple and geometric something gets, the less useful sculpting is for it and the more work you would have to do to make it not look like a sculpt.

No one uses sculpting for SIMPLE hard surface. The point is it's much faster for complex hard surface.
>>
>>657180
Give me a poly count on that
>>
>>657185
I don't know. I few hundred thousand to maybe a few million? It's not a game/real time model.
>>
>>657180
That stuff would be painful to do in any CAD program. Probably painful in Zbrush too.
Much respect to the artist.
>>657185
Millions. 3-5 is my guess.
>>
>>657185
Before or after retopo? Does it even matter?
>>
>>657178
Not him but
>the industry meme
Sculpted hard surface works great for still image renders, promotional shit, and filling your portfolio for job opportunities.
Hard surface and geometric shapes go hand in hand. Look at real world examples of what would be considered hard surface. Notice most things are built with function and even then its a collection of simple shapes that have been built up. Just kind of makes more sense for mass production.

I could argue for ages about form over function or inherent beauty in simplicity and simplicity in realism but that doesn't really matter.

>>657190
>>657206
I'm 100% sure that was a joke friendos. Like the "10k poly count beveled edge" post earlier.
>>
>>657030

Every single 3d asset takes a shitload of time to model. Better get used to it.
>>
File: conceptVsProduction.jpg (174 KB, 1920x702)
174 KB
174 KB JPG
We live in a really great time where artists working on the biggest projects today can share how they get their work done.
https://www.artstation.com/andrewhodgson/blog/BNAd/modelling-blog-01-preparation
https://www.artstation.com/andrewhodgson/blog/1q6P/modeling-blog-02-maya-tricks-and-tricks
https://www.artstation.com/andrewhodgson/blog/4aZN/modeling-blog-03-approaching-the-asset
https://www.artstation.com/andrewhodgson/blog/WebY/modeling-blog-04-thinking-ahead-and-reuse
https://www.artstation.com/andrewhodgson/blog/nLq8/modeling-blog-05-finishing-the-asset
This guy works as a hard surface modeler in the worlds most productive and reliable VFX pipeline. Where does Zbrush fit in? as a decimating tool to get scans into Maya so he can get his work done.
>>
>>657210
>the industry meme
>Hard surface should be kept realistic and doesn't look good in motion.
No fun allowed.jpg
Hey man, I love sci-fito sci-fi.
You sound like you may be the one /3/ poster that doesn't play video games or watch sci-fi movies.


>I could argue for ages about form over function or inherent beauty in simplicity and simplicity in realism but that doesn't really matter.
No, it doesn't unless you want to be a modeler for ikea/some architectural design firm.
-Which is MUCH MORE than any of us can hope to accomplish,
BUT WHERE'S THE FUN IN THAT?!!??
You just sound like the kind of guy where the highlight of your day is folding sheets.
>>
>>657228
That first image from zbrush looks great enough to be baked to a real time model.

I'm sure the only reason he has the other 2 models is because those models will be rendered for movies, and they can afford to render something for hours.

If he can create something like the first pic without having to scan it in then decimate it, that would be fine.
>>
File: file.png (946 KB, 1319x749)
946 KB
946 KB PNG
>>657230
I like hard sci fi more, but still really enjoy softer stuff. I'm pretty sure this was almost 100% zbrush but this post is more so about design. it kind of helps talk about what i meant. Its mostly simple geometry with very little as far as nonsensical sci fi gizmos. most things on the model serve a purpose thats easy to figure out at first glance except the tubes on the back. Same with what you posted.
Well thought out doesn't mean over designed simplicity can mean more than just its the bare lowest thing but that its easy to understand what the points are. It doesn't have to be immediately obvious either.
You have to think of the connection between art and the real world. Balancing a lot of "can" with "should" and how simplicity doesn't always mean simple.

Guns and car engines are great examples simplicity in not so simple designs and things that work well but aren't obvious how. I'm over explaining sorry. The highlight of my day is probably the beer at the end of it.
>>
>>657238
>this post is more so about design
> Its mostly simple geometry with very little as far as nonsensical sci fi gizmos
>most things on the model serve a purpose thats easy to figure out at first glance

Ok, so can we agree that the subject of this thread has now changed from what is more efficient to design now?
To recap I say zbrush is more EFFICIENT at complex highly detailed designs, while traditional modeling tools are more EFFICIENT at simple boring every day "realisitc" stuff.

>this post is more so about design
Art/style/aesthetic is going subjective.
The success/effectiveness of something DESIGNED is always going to be dependent on whether or not something achieves its purpose.
That design you posted achieved its purpose, in that it's recognizable as a certain human pilot (Viper specifically from Titanfall2) in a story where there's lots of other human pilots and supporting characters.
It's a good design.

Pic related also is also good design.
This DESIGN achieved its purpose. It has a lot of
> nonsensical sci fi gizmos
but the purpose of this design is to show the hard surface POSSIBILITIES of zbrush.
In this case, the balance of what CAN be done was given priority over what SHOULD be done.
>>
>>657238
>>657264
Now on the topic of preferring a certain aesthetic over the other, I love this robot pilot (also from titanfall 2).


But guess what?
ITS DESIGN FAILED.
More specifically, nothing about this design says "I have an ability to make me run very fast".
That's because this model was meant to be the grapple pilot, but after the beta, the HUMAN players that liked to use grapple so much preferred to play as a HUMAN, so the grapple pilot model was swapped with the stim pilot model.
This model was supposed to convey "I'm a mechanical being so I can do something a regular human is not expected/DESIGNED to do, and that's use a grappling hook."

But in this case, the players didn't care about the DESIGN of the pilots.
They only preferred the visual look of being a human.
The same way when it comes purely to looks (not design) that I actually prefer the look/aesthetic of this pilot because of all of his
>nonsensical sci fi gizmos
and the look of most things on the model DON'T serve a purpose.
>>
File: file.png (736 KB, 1080x540)
736 KB
736 KB PNG
>>657264
>>657267
Interesting point. I do have to say though that the Viper Helmet was originally designed for pulse pilots and was deemed better suited for Viper. So both didn't so much as fail their design purpose but were deemed less visually and aesthetically appealing than another thing or in the case of Viper, more appealing than intended.

If we dissect the design of what became Stim pilot we can really see how its meant for running very fast. Most notably the foot portions. Pic related is a major design for prosthetic legs meant for moving quickly and the STIM pilot has noticeably different legs than the phase shift.

A major thing is the point of a piece and the level of amazement in the viewer you go for something much different than if you want to make something that a viewer is going to spend more time viewing or that needs to be used in more applications.

Some really good examples of over design for the sake to get my point of it that I could bring up would probably be the transformers movies. Sure they are extremely impressive to look at but it doesn't take long of looking at them before you're tired from there being just too much in your eyes and almost none of it makes sense.
And I do that zbrush can make some extremely complex hard surface pretty efficiently, but there really is no such thing as something thats only a gain in this industry.

I know for a fact that not all my points are the best or very well thought out, but I do really enjoy this conversation, its a good look into another mindset than mine and the usual "you're just bad" attitude this place has. thanks for that.
>>
>>657267
>>657269
Correction. You are very correct but it was the phase shift model that was originally grapple. In the case of Phase shift it is very much a generic robot that doesn't really stand out from STIM beyond some clothing and different feet. Although I think that Phase shift was already a failure before then and made as a cut character that they decided to include as a multiplayer pilot class instead.

An important thing is technical impressiveness doesn't mean it looks good it just looks if that makes sense. Like I said looking at transformers to understand that impressive doesn't mean good. Something about the over complications makes them tire your eyes
>>
>>657228
I love this guy's work for the simple reason it's just pure stock Maya

Fucking madman. Maybe one day I'll be half as good.
>>
>>657273
He's got a kitbash library out there. Get it and study it. You put the time in and you will get to his level
>>
File: DXY_004X_color_97 copy.jpg (293 KB, 750x750)
293 KB
293 KB JPG
>>657269
> Viper Helmet was originally designed for pulse pilots and was deemed better suited for Viper
I really don't know what happened, and I don't understand the viper boner TF|2 fans have for viper. He was just another merc to me.
(And I don't understand those eye patch things over his visor)

>Some really good examples of over design for the sake to get my point of it that I could bring up would probably be the transformers movies
I don't know who's responsible for the overall aesthetic of the transformers. I do know that I was in college in the designs were leaked, and THE ENTIRE INTERNET hated the designs. (Why does optimus have flames, bumble bee looks like a pug ec.) It's like Micheal Bay approved them for his own wank material.

>An important thing is technical impressiveness doesn't mean it looks good it just looks if that makes sense.
Understood.
Like I said in
>>656720
> I can see some of those designs being used for films or video games EASILY.
But the other %99 just look irredeemably ugly (pic related), even though I'm THOROUGHLY impressed that it was "modeled" in Houdini.
But I guess I'm biased to technically difficult designs because I know how easy/hard 3D can be, and most "realistic" stuff doesn't call for much more that modifying a cube primitive.

>The highlight of my day is probably the beer at the end of it.
Hey, do you work in
>the industry
?
>>
>>657279
I get you man. Like you said earlier aesthetics are subjective. We both have our biases and lean to favor some things over others for various reasons. Simple realistic just makes more sense to me probably so I tend to favor it. Trying to get as much from as little would be a good way to say it. Theres the concept of "Creative limitation" that really appeals to me. I'm thinking now that that render you posted now suffers from a lack of direction. Both are incredibly impressive due to other reasons but suffer from a grounded perspective and intended result. The transformers on the other hand would be in the opposite boat, suffering from far too much direction. Likely a mixture of micheal bay and share holders going "ok but can you make it look more complicated and bad ass"

What I said earlier is pretty true. I think this has been a good conversation on /3/ for once instead of nonsense unless I'm spouting nonsense. Makes sense to me at least

Also tried the industry meme for a while. Turns you into an asset monkey. Hollywood and most video game companies don't let 3d grow as an art. Thats just my opinion though, don't let a sad dude dictate your dreams if you aspire to be up there. Something something square peg in a round hole you know?
>>
>>656675
But what should we do to mix organic and hard surface like the pic from OP?
>>
>>657572
Sculpt the organic, subsurf model the rest
>>
>>656715
>You really think the company you work for, or amateurs give a damn about "bevel radius"?
Are you stupid? Bevel radius defines the way light reacts around an edge, edge radius and surface quality are THE most important things when it comes to hard surface, and ZBrush can do none of them.
>>
>>657811
>subsurf model
What do you mean by that?
modeling with subdivision? like, pretty much polymodelling?
>>
>>657572
Sculpt the hard surface and render it onto an image and pretend like you did a lot more work than you did for your artstation render showcase.
>>
>>657827

https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/modifiers/generate/subsurf.html
>>
>>656834

Virtually all pros sculpt characters and retopo them. And yet, you call it a meme. You sound like a typical 3d non-artist trying to feel better about himself.
>>
>>657273

Stock maya is perfectly fine and has been for a while now.
>>
>>658584
so, subdivision modeling.
>>
>>658593
that's only necessitated in a large studio setting.
>>
>>658895
scultping is literally the only way to do something more or less interesting
>>
>>658899
Speak for your own limitations only.
>>
>>658899
Over designed and over detailed blobs, sure. I'm getting really sick of this trend
>>
>>658905
Yah, vitaly bulgarov's kitbashing is really inspiring!

>>658903
Topest of keks. Imagine how much time it would take to make the slightest of changes in such a complex model by choosing polys one by one in a subd workflow. That's what makes sculpting so aluring, you can try and block different shapes fast and see how they work, and quickly delete them down the road. Subd worflow is only passable if you already have a really clear drawing of your concept or a previous sculpt, otherwise you're just losing unneeded time.
>>
>>658899
holy shit what is this mess? why is it so blobby? this looks like it was just stretched out of someone's ass. i could make something 1000x more interesting using just maya's modeling toolkit. all while being riggable off the bat. why are people so hung up on sculpting when a low poly mesh with painted normals can get similar results AND have hard surfaces? it makes no sense.
>>
>>658908
>is only passable if you already have a really clear drawing of your concept or a previous sculpt,

like that other anon said, "Speak for your own limitations only.". most pros CAN do this.
>>
>>658909
haha, how can you be so fucking deluded. Also, you have shit taste.

>>658911
Please, go ahead and post examples.
Also, you're not really answering our concerns over subd workflows, which are that you pretty much are stuck with what you've done and can't make big changes without losing a fuckton of time. That is, unless you bring some form of sculpting move brush or something into your subd workflow.
>>
this is currently the worst thread on /3/
>>
>>658916
>There are people who don't conform to my autistic views on this thread! It's such a bad thread!
>>
>>658920
>doing something correctly is autistic hurr!

ah jeez the zoomer mindset...
>>
>>658920
>implying i had any views in the first place
It's a consistent repeat of all the classic arguments that /3/ pulls.
>this looks like shit and i can do better
>post your work
>yeah i'm not doxxing myself for a bunch of internet retards
And your usual
>here's an essay on why you're wrong
>yeah thanks for confirming you're a literal retard
Actually, the polymodelling thread is even worse than this one. Never mind.
>>
>>658922
No, you're actually trying to fix a square inside a circle. You can't do a quick sketch by polimodeling, but feel free to proove me wrong.

>>658924
People still can't refute sculpting is the superior choice for quick sketching a model. Some of the tools might not be quite there for some applications (zbrush is very limited for hard surface modeling, but 3d coat is better in that regard), but there are things you can't polimodel without a clear concept reference, too.
>>
>>658908
>Kitbashing
>>
>>658931
you're the one that's trying to make a square by carving against a circle, LITERALLY. how can you be so ironic?
>>
>>658932
Yeah.
Also, I'm still mad they hired an autist with a fucking goatee for gost in the shell. This industry is a fucking cesspool.

>>658934
>no, you!
Try to actually respond to your contenders arguments next time you have a discussion.
>>
>>658908
>choosing polys one by one in a subd workflow
This is what ZBrush cowboys believe.
>>
>>658939
Soft selections and fallofs in modo are slow as balls and nobody uses them because they're too restrictive.
>>
File: 1362203511698.jpg (61 KB, 413x395)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
WTF is this thread still alive?
1/2

>>657826
>Bevel radius defines the way light reacts around an edge, edge radius and surface quality are THE most important things when it comes to hard surface, and ZBrush can do none of them.
AND IT'S STILL USED FOR FASTER HARD SURFACE WORKFLOW IN
>THE INDUSTRY
VIDEO GAMES, FILMS, CONCEPT ART ETC.

You would care for bevel radius if you were rending Ikea furniture or close up product shots or mechanical bits.

>>658895
>that's only necessitated in a large studio setting.
WTF? Thanks to sculpting, 3D is to the point you don't even need to know what you're going to model once you sit down, whether it's hard surface or organic.
Have you never seen zbrush vids on youtube or twitch? It's to the point now that sculpting first and seeing what comes out of it is way more fun and immersive than following concept art.

>>658908
Nice 3DCoat thing. I've been following fuad-quaderi for a while now. Even purchased one of his gumroad tutorials, but Zbrush still creates better stuff than 3DCoat, and I'm saying that as someone who's used both AND spent way more time in 3D coat because I got tired of pirating zbrush and bought 3DCoat indie. They both have their pros and cons, but 3DCoat meshes are voxel triangles. Not clean quads like Zbrush
:(

>Imagine how much time it would take to make the slightest of changes in such a complex model by choosing polys one by one in a subd workflow. That's what makes sculpting so aluring, you can try and block different shapes fast and see how they work, and quickly delete them down the road. Subd worflow is only passable if you already have a really clear drawing of your concept or a previous sculpt, otherwise you're just losing unneeded time.
This is true.
>>
>>660822
2/2

>>>658931
>sculpting is the superior choice for quick sketching a model.
Yes it is.
Of course it is.

>zbrush is very limited for hard surface modeling, but 3d coat is better in that regard
I disagree. Zbrush has come a long way and I know its hard surface results are directly used in games such as Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Masseffect, Titanfall, and Halo. I think even DOOM hard surface models were made directly in zbrush because using traditional modeling apps would've taken way longer.
>>
>>660825
Which one did you buy?
I'm thinking of getting one, but I'm not sure how good they're, as they have no voice. Are they clear enough?
>>
Watch Pavlovich's Speed Modeling tutorial before arguing that Zbrush is bad for hard surface. No, the gun isn't perfect, but he makes it in *45 minutes.* Even Arrimus3d is nowhere near that fast. There's no option for a polyfag to create something quickly, see if it looks decent, then quickly iterate if they want to make changes.

https://gumroad.com/l/HfxPS
https://gumroad.com/pavlovich
>>
File: Final.jpg (291 KB, 1005x727)
291 KB
291 KB JPG
>>660872
>fuad-quaderi
Sculpting helmet with 3D coat.

Worth the $5 to me.
Taught me some stuff I didn't know about, but the main thing is using a brush that increases density without sculpting. This allows you to add sharper details, but still, it's voxel triangles which are fine for concept art, but I know that zbrush high res meshes can be baked directly to retopology.

3DCoat is fine, dare I say absolutely fantastic for a beginner, sculpting but it just seems you can go deeper and create more polished ready to bake stuff with zbrush.
>>
>>660884
The problem is that zbrush is too restrictive in that regard. 3D coat allows more freedom, at least in the blocking stages.
Opening a hole or making an intricate cut in the midle of a complicate in zbrush is a nightmare, In 3d coat there are no holes that must be closed. The voxel hide tool is a gift from the gods, while the trim or clip brush are really unreliable.
>>
>>660933
Could you upload the tutorial somewhere, please? I just turned down my credit card because I can't pay its maintenance costs.
>>
>>660884
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exuFW_3kus
>>
>>660958
That looks like a toy gun, compared to the one done in zbrush.
Also, subd modeling doesn't really allow for much shape explarotion, may be that's why that gun looks so bad.
>>
>>660958
No. I only watched it once. It's the kind of video where you only need to watch it once.
No longer have it on my PC, plus I'm at work now etc.
>>660958
Hello.
I'm a modo user.
What's being argued ITT is poly modeling for hard surface vs sculpting.
That isn't poly modeling.
That's a boolean plugin that you have to pay for, and zbrush also boolean capability for hard surface out of the box.
All you did was prove that even to make that gun, traditional polygonal modeling isn't the most efficient method for hard surface.
>>
>>660963
>No. I only watched it once. It's the kind of video where you only need to watch it once.
>No longer have it on my PC, plus I'm at work now etc.
What a bummer, I guess you're talking about the tutorial and quoted the wrong post, right?
>>
>>660975
Correct.
>>
>>660822
>You would care for bevel radius if you were rending Ikea furniture or close up product shots or mechanical bits.
I would, because I work in automotive visualization. ZBrush hard surface "Artists" constantly get rejected because the software just can't put out good enough surface quality and edge flows.
>>
>>660992
Why would you need hard surface artists when doing automotive visualization? Don't you get models made from CAD as a basis? You don't actually remodel the whole car?
I did some car visualization and we always got converted high res poly models. The job was 100% surfacing/lighting and rendering.
>>
>>660992
Yeah, and guess what?
That's YOUR little niche in the industry.
SO OF COURSE
>bevel radius
Would be a big deal in a category requiring technical precise engineering an measurements.

But that doesn't mean zbrush isn't more efficient and well established for hard surface in other 3D sub-categories (video games, concept art, and movies).
Pic related. High res was done using only Zbrush.

-You do have me curious though:
What's used for automotive stuff? Poly modeling software like modo, Maya, or 3ds Max? Or CAD software like AutoCAD, fusion 360 or MOI 3D?
>>
>>660999
We remodel everything that has to look soft because CAD can't do it, and the surface smoothness and accuracy requirements are so high that ZBrush also can't do it. That's fairly common, every model we've received from other companies had the seats, dashboard, etc remodeled.
Occasionally there are parts missing, too, rims, or new variations or parts where they don't have the CAD parts done yet.
You're right about CAD though, 99% of the car is tesselated CAD geometry.

>>661001
You are constantly referring to characters when it comes to ZBrush. That's less than 1% of modeling that's being spent on a game.
For concept art, most people use blockouts from Max, Maya, Modo, etc and then paint over them.
Movies (and some games which can afford it) are moving to 3D scanned models, you'd also very seldomly see a hard surface model (cars, weapons, etc) done in ZBrush for a movie.
>What's used for automotive stuff? Poly modeling software like modo, Maya, or 3ds Max? Or CAD software like AutoCAD, fusion 360 or MOI 3D?
I've seen Maya and 3DS Max being used, Modo would be a good candidate, too.
>>
>>661003
>For concept art, most people use blockouts from Max, Maya, Modo, etc and then paint over them.
Ok, and what are you referring to here?
Concept what? Environments? I know games that have used that process, but then again only for blocky urban environments.
I've seen painted over zbrush terrain and tree insert meshes as a faster way to get organic environment concept art.

Hardsurface concepts can be done in zbrush. Yes it's predominantly characters, but not limited to them.
And it's been stated that when you don't have a concept, finding forms and creating one is much easier and
>efficient
in zbrush, to the point that paint overs would only be needed to tighten up a sculpt (as opposed to painting over gray models from Max, Maya, Modo

It sounds like you're just triggered because zbrush is so popular but doesn't fit into your technical automotive niche.
I'm not saying zbrush is the ultimate 3D tool, but for hard surface efficiency and concepting, it's WAAAAY more efficient than polymodeling, and this is coming from someone who's primary 3D package is modo.
-Yes, if I need to do something for precision hard surface I'll use modo, but for the speed of form finding and the overall "big picture", zBrush.
>>
>>661029
That looks like it was made in ZBrush.
>>
>>661003
>Less than 1% of modelling spent on a game

What kind of games are you playing?
>>
>>661029
agree 100%
who are advocating against Zbrush just don't know it's full capabilities.
I really don't get how maya or max is more "efficient" than zbrush in ANY way?! (as modelling goes)

oh and, there are definitely some people who are not using it, but most of them have their workflows set in stone for a long time and they don't see any reason, why they should change what works. or many of them just don't have time to make such huge switch.
but if somebody is starting now, and avoiding it, they are out of their mind.

some time ago I watched FlipedNormal's video, some top 5 or 10, what not to do as 3d artist. one of their points was to not be "Zbrush Monkey", the reason was, to also learn other softwares beside zbrush(maya for example), which I agree 100%,
but the other reason was, because you can not boxmodel with it. they showed some box modelled crocodile, and said that you can not do it in Zbrush. well, that's complete BS.
then some idiots watch the video and think it's 100% truth.

>Hardsurface in Zbrush is impossible
I really don't get rom where are people getting this >>661099



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.