Just to toss in a quick word from a rigger's perspective. It sounds like most of the complaints are coming from the modeling side, where features have apparently been lost. But from the rigging side an amazing new tool has been gained: being able to sculpt shape keys on a deformed character mesh. This is absolutely invaluable for creating corrective shape keys, and I lament that I did not have this tool while working on Sintel. I cannot thank Sergey enough for this new feature.
So there is a reason for the change in sculpt's behavior. But indeed, it would be cool if there was some way to have both feature sets. Of course, you can't _actually_ sculpt on a subdivision mesh, since most of the vertices don't exist as such to be sculpted on. But a decent illusion thereof is very useful, I'm sure. Sergey: FYI, in production, the final modifier stack for a character generally looks something like this: 1. [Mirror] 2. Armature 3. Subdivision 4-n. Other stuff Usually there is no mirror modifier by the time it gets to rigging, due to the needs of texturing. Though there are occasional exceptions. I think it is generally safe to assume for sculpt-on-armature-deform that the armature modifier comes first in the stack. As a rigger, I can always temporarily disable modifiers that come before the armature deform when working, if needed. I also assume there is no armature modifier in the stack when modelers are doing sculpt work. I don't know if that helps solve things or not, but just in case that information is useful. (Incidentally, this is all going to become quite difficult if/when we get modifier nodes. Already I do not expect this to be supported with multi-modifier armature deform. Maybe some way of selecting which modifier you are sculpting with...) --Nathan On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Ronan Zeegers <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > Thank to listen to my opinion! I hope it will have his weight between > all other one ;) > Like you said, maybe the best solution would be a slider (to give the % > of alpha level) or an option to be able to view the constructive > modifiers and/or hide the base mesh. > > About combinations of modifiers, I remember playing with Lattice and > Armature modifier + Sculpt in Blender 2.4x. But it was in exceptionnal > cases. > For me, the most commun cases are Subsuf and Subsurf+Mirror modifier. > I'll come back to you If I find other. > > cheers, > > Ronan Zeegers > /*Postprod 2D/3D* > + 32 (0) 473 45 20 43 > www.ronanzeegers.com / > > > > Le 21/04/2011 13:42, Sergey I. Sharybin a écrit : >> Ronan Zeegers wrote: >>> Hello Sergey, >>> >>> Why not keeping the old approach for the subsurf and mirror modifier? >>> Like you said, at least supporting some simple cases. >>> The intuitiveness of this approach seems to be subjective. >> Current approach was introduced becaue plenty of artists missed >> predictable sculpting on armatured mesh and to implement this i had to >> disable old behaviour (otherwise, things can't be predictable enough and >> both of implementation/working as user was quite difficult task) >>> To defend the old behavior, I think that a 3D artist know that he is >>> scuplting/moving vertex of the base mesh. Not the "virtual" vertex of >>> the subsurf/mirrored/displaced mesh. >>> It never disturbed me to not moving the shape because I was not clicking >>> in an area where there was vertex. >> It's just two different cases which can't live togeter well, but current >> implementation could be used as "basis" for easier re-implement old >> behaviour for constructive modifier. >> >> Actually, i don't think it's contructive to continue discussion like >> "things were cool, now it's not so cool" -- it's different cases and >> returning of (at least some of) constructive modifiers is in my >> sculpting todo list. I'd prefer to collect as much opinions as it's >> possible to find out which behaviour should be used by default, which >> additional modes should be added and so on (everything, which could help >> to make sculpting in blender useful for wide audience of artists). >> >> Currently, me and Tom (a.k.a Letterrip) dicussed this things and we >> found that re-implementing my old derived-cage patch would help a lot >> with supporting constructive modifiers. Idea is the same as it used for >> edit mode: draw final shape solid and mesh, which is actually editing be >> half-transparent. It wouldn't be helpful for case of deformation >> modifiers because things are becaming much more difficult to see in the >> screen, but should work fine for constructive modifiers and also it'll >> help to visualize "sculpting layer" for difficult cases. >> >> Personally, i don't think supporting of constructive mosidiers should be >> enabled by default -- i'd prefer to have things enabled by default if >> their behaviour is well predictable. Maybe i'm wrong, but it'll be >> simple to change. Also, that half-transparent derived cage could be >> toggleable, so it could be easily hidden. >> >> P.S. Maybe i forgot to mention that disabling all constructive modifiers >> gives advantage in case of mixed constructive/deformation modifiers in >> the stack. In this case i'll see quite final shape of object (maybe >> without vonstructed elements as mirrored part and so on), but shape >> itself is final. >> P.P.S. Difference from previous implementation of derived-cage patch, >> this half-transparent part could be crated from mesh with applying all >> leading deformation modifiers. Maybe it'll be useful. I just not sure >> about which combinations of modifiers are actually used by artists -- >> but you could help me with it ;) >>> cheers, >>> >>> Ronan Zeegers >>> /*Postprod 2D/3D* >>> + 32 (0) 473 45 20 43 >>> www.ronanzeegers.com / >>> >>> >>> Le 21/04/2011 09:45, Sergey I. Sharybin a écrit : >>>> Looks like it was implemented in 2.49 exactly in the same way as it >>>> was before enabling sculpting on deformed mesh in 2.5 and i don't find >>>> it intuitive. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what do you mean "properly" -- i can't make strokes on >>>> mirrored part of mesh. And what about sculpting on deformed/armatured mesh? >>>> >>>> Problem that we can't deal with all kinds of modifier stack content and >>>> now we allow only that modifiers, which could be handled ~100% correct. >>>> Of course, we could support simple cases like Bse mesh -> mirror -> >>>> subsurf or Base mesh -> armature, but cases like Base mesh -> mirror >>>> -> >>>> armature can't be handled correct. And things could be much more >>>> complicated here and you've got no idea where stroke happens (even in >>>> 2.49 troke isn't happening on that point of subdivided default cube -- >>>> try to grab vertex -- it's movenment would be "delayed", it's because of >>>> distance between dragging vertex and prush posiiton). >>>> >>>> That's why ide of sculpt cage was burn -- just to visualize kinda >>>> "sculpting level" which is used for brushes just to make things more >>>> clear about where sculpting happens. Otherwise, in a bit more >>>> complicated modifier stack you should be making strokes far from place >>>> you want to add some displacement. It's not intuitive at all. >>>> >>>> Matt Ebb wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Sergey I. Sharybin<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Ronan! >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep, you're right -- constructive modifiers (like array, mirror, >>>>>> subsurf,...) were disabled when sculpting. This was made to make >>>>>> sculpting more obvious and enable sculpting on deformed mesh. >>>>> I forget the issues involved here, but I recall sculpting (modifying >>>>> base level mesh, as you would in edit mode) with mirror and subsurf on >>>>> was supported properly in 2.49 - a modeller friend I've worked with >>>>> relied on this a lot - using the sculpt tools to tweak poly modelled >>>>> objects. What's the difference between how it worked in 2.49 and now? >>>>> is it possible at all to restore similar functionality as 2.49? >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Bf-committers mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bf-committers mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
