Why do I diss Marvelous Designer, Sketchup, Zbrush, Mudbox, etc...

[Kyrah Abattoir]

Let me first start by saying, these are all great tools! You can do amazing things with them and they all fill a specific creative niche.

But unless you are already fairly proficient with 3D studio, Blender, Maya, (or any of the other great general purpose modeling softwares out there), you should just put those softwares aside and stop using them.

Becoming a better mesh content creator only comes with practicing actual polygon modeling, there is no way around this if you care about producing clean and optimized models, and it is the one thing you cannot get better at using those tools.

You can absolutely use them to supercharge your creative process, but only after you acquired the skills required to rework/refine/clean/remesh/improve/lod the models these tools output into something suitable for a realtime application like Second Life.

[animats]

3 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

You can absolutely use them to supercharge your creative process, but only after you acquired the skills required to rework/refine/clean/remesh/improve/lod the models these tools output into something suitable for a realtime application like Second Life.

After which you have no other life.

SL needs a simpler creation process. Something like Archimatrix for buildings. A clothing system where clothing drapes automatically. Automated LOD that works.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

But that's already a thing @animats, you don't seem to realize how quick, easy, affordable and approachable the tools have become in a mere 20 years of 3D video game asset creation history.

[ChinRey]

9 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Becoming a better mesh content creator only comes with practicing actual polygon modeling, there is no way around this if you care about producing clean and optimized models, and it is the one thing you cannot get better at using those tools.

This is the essentials of good mesh craftsmanship but it's very important to keep in mind that the problem with the software listed in the title also applies to Blender, Maya etc.! The difference is that Blender and Maya have some hidden extra tools to work around the problem. In Blender it's called Edit Mode, I don't know what it's called in Maya.

Look at these two jars:

This is how they look in Blender in the default Object Mode. Slightly different shading but otherwise practically identical. Once they are textured, you won't be able to tell the difference.

But switch to Edit Mode:

The one to the left has 3,247 vertices and 6,480 triangles, the one to the right 1,296 vertices and 696 triangles. Each vertice represents at least 72 bytes of data, each triangle at least 24 bytes. That means the jar to the left takes up about four times as much bandwidth and computing powers as the one to the left and it's all a waste of resources.

My point here is, you don't see this in Sketchup or MD or Tree[d] or even in Blender's Object Mode and then there's not much you can do about it. Once you see it, much of the issues are obvious for anybody with a functioning brain cell or two.

My answer is, make your mesh any way you want but at least take a proper look at the actual vertices and polys it's made from before you upload.

----

6 hours ago, animats said:

SL needs a simpler creation process.

That's essentially how SL started but unfortunately the original building systems were never updated properly.

 

6 hours ago, animats said:

Something like Archimatrix for buildings.

Archimatrix is a very good idea but it's still less than meets the eye. It could be a nice supplement to our existing modelling functions but if we want a simple but flexible building material anbody can learn to handle, the prim system is a far better starting point.

 

6 hours ago, animats said:

After which you have no other life.

You can say that about programming too. And music. And every other activity that require a little bit of skill.

The difference is, you don't blame the compiler if the programmer can't write proper code and you don't blame the violin if the violinist can't play in tune. But you do blame the software if the 3D modeller can't make efficient meshes.

Edited August 23, 2020 by ChinRey

[OptimoMaximo]

39 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

I don't know what it's called in Maya.

EDIT mode 😁

40 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

You can say that about programming too. And music. And every other activity that require a little bit of skill.

The difference is, you don't blame the compiler if the programmer can't write proper code and you don't blame the violin if the violinist can't play in tune. But you do blame the software if the 3D modeller can't make efficient meshes

I totally agree. 

[n0minous]

I agree, but I'm not sure whether ZBrush should be included in the list since it has ZRemesher for retopology and ZModeler for polygon modeling. I know that it can't compare to traditional poly modeling software, but it's something. If someone is dedicated enough to 3D sculpting to buy ZBrush (no small investment), it's pretty much a given that they'll learn the high to low poly pipeline if their goal is game asset creation. Especially since most beginner 3D artists are trying to break into the video game/film industries and have CGI-centric communities like ZBrushCentral, polycount, and Artstation to learn from more experienced artists, but I digress.

This is a nice PSA for realtime content creators who don't pay much attention to optimizing 3D models, textures, etc. I'm curious how many creators actually visit the SL forums though. Since SL's performance is highly dependent on the creation of optimized assets, I think Linden Lab should make a better effort to reach out to beginner/intermediate content creators. Can't they leverage their SL Youtube channel and invite experienced content creators for interviews to offer advice? The ppl who need the most help are those who don't ever read this and similar threads imo.

Edited August 22, 2020 by n0minous

[ChinRey]

4 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

EDIT mode 😁

Hmmm, are we seeing some pattern here?

[OptimoMaximo]

8 hours ago, n0minous said:

I agree, but I'm not sure whether ZBrush should be included in the list since it has ZRemesher for retopology and ZModeler for polygon modeling

Zremesher is a remesher, not a retopology tool. The geometry generated by it isn't any good but for sculpting, and it was intended with one scope in mind: let the artist work with digital clay using dynamesh to make the primary shapes (and maybe mock up the secondary) to be free from having a base mesh to start from, then using Zremesher generate a proper mesh that can be sculpted properly using multires subdivision to keep working down to the tertiary shapes and fine details. 

[n0minous]

@OptimoMaximo The author of ZRemesher and Quad Remesher also calls it auto-retopology in discourse and I think "remesh" is more of a brand name that's used in context of his tools. Mainly cuz it rolls off the tongue better lol. Retopology is more correct historically and I think we're arguing semantics at this point.

Yup, I'm familiar with the dynamesh to ZRemesher workflow for adding fine details. The scope of ZRemesher and Quad Remesher seems to have been extended to hard surface retopo in recent years: http://docs.pixologic.com/user-guide/3d-modeling/topology/zremesher/ https://polycount.com/discussion/208030/quadremesher-new-auto-retopo-plugin-for-maya-3dsmax/p1

Again, they're not quite there yet compared to retopo'ing manually in traditional poly modeling software. You can see ppl being excited about progress being made in this area much like auto UV unwrapping tools. I wouldn't be surprised if their algorithms become advanced enough to use in production (with minimal cleanup) within the next decade or two.

Edited August 23, 2020 by n0minous

[OptimoMaximo]

1 hour ago, n0minous said:

Yup, I'm familiar with the dynamesh to ZRemesher workflow

So you should also be aware of the spiral loops that a remesh algorithm is prone to create, as opposed to a strict retopology process where the user actually CONTROLS the topology being created. Both process are inherently similar, in which the mesh gets recreated, so perhaps semantically they MIGHT sound similar, but there are two different terms for a reason, and it's not about the raw process in itself, rather the finality. 

Edited August 23, 2020 by OptimoMaximo

[n0minous]

@OptimoMaximo I realize now that I should've said auto-retopology instead of retopology in my initial post that you quoted, which probably caused a misunderstanding. I also didn't realize that remesh was a term that was commonly used nowadays as a synonym for auto-retopology, which I was mainly arguing. I was wrong about this since I haven't used remeshing tools for a long time. I completely agree with what you're saying though that manual retopology is most accurate for creating clean low poly models, yes. Hopefully we're straight now lol.

[OptimoMaximo]

Anyway, I would not include Mudbox among the bad practice softwares, mainly for one reason: its main workflow implies the import of a basemesh to begin with, it's not a design softwares and the user has not as much freedom in that regard. I personally call it a technically oriented artistic tool, because Mudbox basically wants a finished design to add the final details to, it complains a lot if the mesh hasn't got clean topology and UVs upon import, to the point of refusing imported meshes that have a number of problems or very severe ones like non manifold geometry or laminafaces. It is also a texturing tool that starts from a multires subdivision approach, unlike ZBrush which focuses on polypainting and optionally can bake the textures out depending from the workflow used, provided that the model got UVs (either pre-made or made within the program itself). But Mudbox has an image based texture layer system, as opposed to ZBrush which, again, works with vertex colors. For these reasons I wouldn't include MB to that list, instead I would say that among all of those, it's the one that tries to get the best optimized model as input to output middle stage assets. For what type of production, it's up to the user and the model that the user feeds to the software.