08-23-2016, 11:55 PM
Box modeling...Yep, I use the term, too. Thinking of what it meant when it first was used, that term... I'd prefer to define its style as Mirai-like, (or at least, subdivision modeling sounds better to me) which IMO goes beyond what the usual box modeling in 3ds Max used to allow...(typically extruding boxes, little bit more...)
I don't see much of a point though in improving the sculpting tools... Performance wise it can't compete with Sculptris or Zbrush... or the many others specialized in that. Is not thought for that task. I think it is best if keeps evolving (even if very slowly, or even not at all) in its area/field. Today am not sure studios are going with one or another specific way to "start" the modeling stage. Today is probably the less time consuming step. IMHO is all about the package used by the studio or artist, you end up modeling in the technique where that package is stronger. (subdivs, nurbs, point modeling, etc) . I suspect a lot of people today just go directly zbrush or similar, then use some special tool for creating the low pol topology (like topgun, blender's snap system, 3d coat etc.). And they have to deal so much with shaders and special effects that often just model in the tool with better connection to the pipeline, even if they don't love the tool for modeling. For independent users, hobbyists, all that does not apply. Maybe the Erlang promotion on the site is not a bad idea, dunno.
Integrate a renderer....Dunno, I don't see the need. Again, that'd be changing the concept towards a multiple task/general package, which it is not, and I don't see the human resources around able (in matters of time available) to achieve such giant set of tasks. Also, is so super easy to export to renderers (not only Blender) that I don't see such need in concentrating the coding effort in that...
If anything, in performance, that'd be quite practical, as models, even low /mid versions every day are asked to be higher... Not a big issue, but IMO would be practical.
Other than that, a path of little changes as much, is more than fine...I'm indeed stuck with 1.5.4... (in my system is the one working best)
I don't see much of a point though in improving the sculpting tools... Performance wise it can't compete with Sculptris or Zbrush... or the many others specialized in that. Is not thought for that task. I think it is best if keeps evolving (even if very slowly, or even not at all) in its area/field. Today am not sure studios are going with one or another specific way to "start" the modeling stage. Today is probably the less time consuming step. IMHO is all about the package used by the studio or artist, you end up modeling in the technique where that package is stronger. (subdivs, nurbs, point modeling, etc) . I suspect a lot of people today just go directly zbrush or similar, then use some special tool for creating the low pol topology (like topgun, blender's snap system, 3d coat etc.). And they have to deal so much with shaders and special effects that often just model in the tool with better connection to the pipeline, even if they don't love the tool for modeling. For independent users, hobbyists, all that does not apply. Maybe the Erlang promotion on the site is not a bad idea, dunno.
Integrate a renderer....Dunno, I don't see the need. Again, that'd be changing the concept towards a multiple task/general package, which it is not, and I don't see the human resources around able (in matters of time available) to achieve such giant set of tasks. Also, is so super easy to export to renderers (not only Blender) that I don't see such need in concentrating the coding effort in that...
If anything, in performance, that'd be quite practical, as models, even low /mid versions every day are asked to be higher... Not a big issue, but IMO would be practical.
Other than that, a path of little changes as much, is more than fine...I'm indeed stuck with 1.5.4... (in my system is the one working best)