Does anyone have a good technique for drawing tentacles on the tool without dropping it and using the snake-hook brush? I need to create more realistic looking tentacles and would like them to be part of the model so I can use texture master on them. Any ideas?
To do that, you really have two options. One is to use Edit modes (Draw and Move) to build up and pull out your tentacles. The drawback is that you’ll get distorted polygons, which will texture poorly. The advantage is that it’s the easier way to go about it.
Your second option is to use something like heavily initialized and deformed Spherinder3D’s or Cone3D’s to create the tentacles and the MultipleMarker tool to fuse everything together as one object. It’s the more complex approach, but will give you the best results. In addition, the texturing will be easier since tentacles are automatically going to get in the way of each other during that process. But a MM polymesh can have the texture unwrapped with you clearly being able to see each tentacle – a non-complex object would use one single plane for everything.
Just had a brainstorm on this! I think I will try drawing the tentacle out in photoshop in black and white then blurring it and bringing it into Bryce as an alpha to be used on a symettrical lattice. Then I can export it as an .obj file and manipulate it in ZBrush! I will let you know how it goes…
Mentat, one thing which seems to get lost with this software is that it is a program for producing images.
Something you might want to consider is that if you know what you want in the finished image, you can ‘model in place’. What I mean by this is probably best illustrated with an image…
Here, I wanted a 'tendrilly appearance to these details, so I placed an egg-shaped sphere, then used the Snake Hook brush…I know you want to model, then save…But have you thought of this approach? I mean, figuring out what you need, then doing it in place? Remember, the tentacles you put in so carefully will be partly hidden, so why do what you can’t see? (I can’t take credit for this advice…Southern posted it a long time ago, and it makes emminent sense to me! 
)
Oh yeah SC…that was the first method I thought of. I just thought if I could model something like that it would be kind of neat to mess around with it. Also I would be able to save the tool and re-use it and re-use it…etc Makes perfectly good sense to paint when you don’t have to model it but…Southern’s Michael picture is a prime example why I want to do it with a tool. After all he did the clothing as tools instead of just painting them on…
You’re right about the tool clothing Mentat, but what makes you think the two are mutually exclusive? You can place a figure, with no clothing, add a layer, model the clothing on this layer, then move it into place…At the risk of being thought a self-aggrandisement freak, here’s another illustration…
This boot was modelled in place, on a layer above the leg, then merged…The rest of the boot will be added the same way…
Fantastic stuff, it is a joy to read what you guys are writing. so much to learn, so much to digest…
So SC with the boot example was it created using a 3D sphere tool (or other) or was it painted on? I often model parts and then drop them and merge them together thus creating a 2.5D image that is no longer editable in “true” 3D. I understand that concept. I guess what I am getting at is that my prefered method is to model in 3D. The modeling capabilities in ZBrush are what intrigue me the most. This software offers so much for so many people in a diverse arena of interests. I am still working at finding what works best for me when working on a Z project. I am going to experiment with the painting aspects soon in a new series of studies. I want to merge the two and see how well I can blend the two styles together. Bottom line is I am always curious of other people’s methods and techniques. Not to sound too self-proclaiming et al but I have a strong knack for being able to take something someone has shown me and “improve” upon it (emphasis on the subjectivity of that statement)
I like to brainstorm so I gladly welcome your comments and suggestions- they are very much appreciated! 
Mentat, let me give you my procedure in a nutshell…
I used a sphere, I always generally raise the HDiv and VDiv to the max…The exceptions can be seen in the leg, also in the picture…This is a sphere at default HDiv and VDiv…This is because then you don’t get sudden, hard-edged contours. In other words, if the shape is containing detail, I go to max divide, if I want organic, I go minimal on the divide. Although most here do, I have never subdivided a mesh…I prefer to think about what I need first, then pick the appropriate resolution. A careful choice of the right brush size, combined with the right ZIntensity, does the rest.
The most important thing about my personal approach is that I prefer to model with my scene loaded…Then I can see how things fit…
Feel free to email me personally, (I don’t block email), if you want further details or help!
An Edit… Thinking about it, I didn’t use a sphere for the boot-top…I used a tapered, high-rez cylinder, tapered, with the interior hollow…Sorry for misdirection…I usually try to think of what primitive is closest to my desired final object…
SC I think we “think” along the same lines. I too have never subdivided a mesh and I start with the highest resolution on the mesh possible- computing speed has never been an issue for me. I also pick the tool that is closes to the shape I need. BUT…I just discovered the CTRL-masking ability and have tried the divide and smooth commands (and inflate) in conjunction with it and I like very much! I think my drawings are going to have much more detail in the future especially around the eyes and mouth! :eek: