Since I work in games I don't always have the pleasure to sculpt and I have to use the traditional approach.
I'm now sculpting in a new project, after a few years of not using ZB, and I'm not sure how obsolete may be my procedure so I would like to ask some questions. - Normal maps. What should I use to bake them? I remember that ZBrush didn't give me good results years ago, have this changed? xNormal was a better alternative to SI and Maya since it was pretty fast and good results. I'm still using it. - Retopo I've heard good things about ZB and 3D Coat retopo tools but haven't use them. I've never used Topogun either but I've heard that that was the standard a few years ago. Is still topogun the best tool for this? - General Workflow I do a base model in SI, somewhat detailed, specially hard surface that I find easier to do in SI. Simple Weight for pose and test. crease in Maya if necessary because goZ doesn't support SI creasing. goZ and sculpt I don't retopo from scratch, I use the base model and tweak it over a mid-high mesh that I've imported from ZB into SI. Shrink & Wrap works good enough. Create UVs. Bake Normals in xNormal CrazyBump for texture base and Photoshop. I haven't tried Mari yet (we don't have Mari) Would retopo be a faster approach? I've never sculpted from scratch. This is what is working for me, but is there something that you would recommend to change? Thanks Martin On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jon Swindells <[email protected]>wrote: > It's also a task that can be shunted off onto lesser mortals and the > great unwashed :) > > j/k > > Paul pretty much nailed it > > -- > Jon Swindells > [email protected] > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014, at 01:23 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > Although you might see it as modelling twice, Whats really happening is > > that > > you are splitting up the artistic from the technical decision making. > > Firstly you can just concentrate on what looks good without having to > > worry > > about the topology. This makes this stage a lot more fun. > > The second stage is made a lot easier, as you have the form already > > there; > > So it is much clearer where the topology loops need to go to describe > > that > > form. > > Overall, doing these 2 procedures is still faster in my experience, and > > far > > less tedious more satisfying than doing it the 'traditional' way. > > > > Paul >
