ZBrushCentral

Techniques for Making Things That Don't Look ZBrushed?

I know this sounds like a very vague question, not like most of the issues here, which are specific technical problems, but I think this is something that a lot of people besides me must be struggling with. How do you make things that don’t have that “ZBrush look” to them?

What I mean is the lumpy clay-like surface that seems to result from most of the tools, both in 2.5D pixol painting, and in 3D sculpting. If you browse through the WIP section of the forums, you’ll see a huge number of ogres, goblins, and gargoyles, I think simply because their lumpy forms work best for the tools in ZBrush. For many people, the strengths and weakness of ZBrush have been dictating the content of their art.

I’ve been using ZBrush to make normal maps and parallax maps for the video game industry, and have found it very useful, but I often have difficulties trying to achieve certain kinds of surfaces. For example, recently I’ve been making normal maps for tiled rock wall textures, mostly by sculpting in a plane, then dropping it to the canvas to make it tile seamlessly. And I’m very happy with all the little rock grains, cracks, and other details I can put in. But getting sharp jagged edges, flat sheared-off planes, and just the kind of forms that rock surfaces take when they chip and shatter has been very difficult for me. And of course, that’s just one example. In almost everything I’ve made with ZBrush, I’ve felt very constrained by the “ZBrush look” that seems to develop despite my best efforts.

I know that this is simply a matter of skill. There are some artists on this forum who are not limited to making lumpy gargoyle and ogre faces, because they have mastered the tools to the point where they can do anything they want. I was hoping that those masters might be able to impart some wisdom to those of us who are still struggling. Any advice on how to make things that don’t have that clay-like surface would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Although I’m not much of an authority on this, I think what happens to most of us in Zbrush is we go to detailing too quick. I would recommend getting Zack’s DVD, as it really shows you how to use Zbrush for more than just detailing. Although he focuses on a human anatomical figure, his work method is immediately transferable to any other type of surface.

But mostly I think it comes down to practice.

Well, what you seem to regard as a weakness, is actually Zbrush’s greatest strength, IMO. While 3D work, in general, has always operated under the presumption that it was the digital analogue to real-world “sculpting”, as digital painting is to real world painting…Zbrush is the first application to really make this an undeniable truth.

As traditional sculptors know, very little in life has form as perfect, lines as straight and crisp, as a traditional 3d modeller would have them. And therein is the “art” of the traditional sculptor, capturing these flaws and imperfections, expressing his/her “humanity” in the execution of form. The skill is in how close the traditional sculptor gets to acheiveing those perfections of form, in spite of the imperfections and flaws which are an inevitibility of a human working freeform with ones own hands. Zbrush acheives this, and returns the generation of form to the hands of the artist, and imbues the realm of digital expression with a much needed dose of humanity.

I would suggest, that if you are after impossibly perfect mathematical forms, you would be better suited towards getting what youre after in a traditional modeller. It would be perfect, and a lot less polys. Or do what many people , including myself do when seeking more perfect, or technological forms…import a “perfect” mesh from a trad modellerer, and use zb to make it a little “less perfect”. There are no rules, after all, saying you cant work in ZB at much lower subdivision levels than you would to generate the highest frequency details. This makes the surface much less sensitive to detail, and you can get a
“sculpted”, but much less “bumpy and organic” surface.

And finally, the “pinch” tool is your friend. Do some experimentation with it and various sizes, subd levels, and z intensities.

Can you provide a link to this Zack’s DVD?
I’m not familiar with it.

Much appreciated.

http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/zpe01.html

And if you’re interested there are also DVD’s by Meats, which I will be getting as soon as I can afford it.

http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/mme01.html

I have been making most of my models with polygonal precision in 3DS Max, then importing them to ZBrush to make them “less perfect” and more real, just as Bingo_Jackson suggests. It is definitely much easier than trying to do it all in ZBrush. Of course for low poly game models, the game geometry needs to be made almost exclusively in a traditional modeller anyhow, but what I’m talking about is making high poly versions in Max as well, then importing that to ZB for sculpting, and finally bringing it back to Max for projection onto the game geometry for normal and parallax maps.

I guess what it comes down to is that I’m frustrated that there’s such a huge gap between the two ways of working, traditional modeler vs ZBrush, and I was hoping to learn ways to do more things directly in ZB rather than always having to meticulously model them in Max. Maybe I’m trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, I don’t know.

As for the pinch tool, yes, I’ve found that to be the best way to get hard edges. Does anyone know a way to simulate the pinch tool effect on pixols rather than poly? Sometimes when I’m doing normal maps that are not geometry-specific (like the tiled rock textures I mentioned above) I’ll drop the model into pixols to add fine details and make it seamless, but I’m always frustrated when adding those details that I can no longer pinch.

Untill ZB gets real edge geometry selection, creasing edges as specifically and precisely as you would be able to in a traditional modeller will always be a bit problematic. Here are some tips I can give you from my own work, when importing from a general purpose traditional modeller.

If there are large portions of your mesh that need to be creased and less organic, isolate those portions by hiding everything but, and shift click “crease edges”. I say shift click, because that applies the creasing to everything visible, and honestly, I havent had any luck in getting zb to crease things on an isolated edge by edge basis. I think for that, you really need to be modelling in ZB from scratch, and I seldom do that except for organics. You can preview which sections are creased with the "frame " button depressed, by which edges have the serrated outlines. Divide a couple sub d levels with the creases on, then remove them by shift clicking “uncrease” which removes all creases visible. That should get you up to high subd levels with portions of your mesh being much more geometrical looking, yet still not having impossibly sharp edges.

In the case of absolutely inorganic hard edged objects, thats easy. Simply un-press the “SMT” button next to the divide button in the geomtry section of the tool menu before dividing. This will subd the mesh as if all the poly edges were 1000% creased.

The problem with this though, is the rather broad application of the creasing, which is not always desirable…sometimes you want to be much more specific, in meshes with mixed characteristics,which can be tough coming in from an outside modeler. ZB doesnt recognize designated creasing from outside packages at the present time. But there are some things you can do to the geometry to make it subdivide more accurately in zb.

  1. Reinforce the geometry around the sections youd like to remain harder. The more subdivided a mesh already is when coming into z, the less the form will alter from smoothing. This can result in some high poly counts though.

  2. A fine bevel along an edge in an outside modeller, is frequently recognized as a inherent virtual crease in most sybd smoothing algorythms. Put a narrow bevel along the edges you with to remain harder when imported and subd’d in zb. This will usually result in a deligtfully hard line, without being impossibly sharp, at higher subd levels.

here are a couple of my tricks in Z, that long time z users have probably known about for a while:

  1. Import the precise mesh into zb. Save it as a morph target. SubD it up4 or 5 levels to get the geomtrty to work with that you want for the hi frequency details. Then drop back down to subd lev 1. Youll see that the smoothing has altered the basic form of the intial mesh somewhat profoundly. In the morph target section of the tool menu, hit “switch” to restore the initial mesh, then “delete” the altered morph target, and store the initial mesh again. Go back up to the highest subd level, and youll see that reinserting the initial mesh has tightened up the subd’d geomtry somewhat. Go back down to subd 1, and youll see that the initial mesh ahs again been altered by the smoothing, but not as profoundly this time.

Repeat the process again, usually 3 or 4 times is enough to get a pretty accurate hi subd level that is reflective of the intiial mesh. This doesnt always work, as sometimes, it can generate especially sharp edges that need to be manually “sanded down” again.

You can probably acheive the same sort of effect just using the morph slider in the morph target menu, but this is the way I do it.

  1. And finally, you can spot “un-smooth” portions of your mesh by masking all
    but the portion you want to tighten up( hiding and masking mesh portions is much easier if you have seperate poly groups set up for everything). Then go to the “smooth slider” of the deformation section of the tool menu. Make sure XYZ are all checked(or not, if you have a precise form that can be accuratly deformed along the various axies, and you get crafty), and move the slider all the way to the left several times. You should see the unmasked portion tighten up quite a bit ( sometimes to the degree of badly deformed geomtry, so you might have to “undo”). This works best if the tool subd level is only at the second or third highest level when you do this, as the denser subd levels tend to resist deformation much more strongly, but the lowest subd level is too structually “weak”, and wont be able to hold the changes through to the highest subd levels.

Once you get your base mesh to maintain the geometric qualities youd like it to all the way up to the highest sub d levels, I think youll find youre able to sculpt and alter form in the low and mid-range subd levels much more quickly and intuitively in ZB than you could in an traditional modeller, using the move tool, and , draw tool, along with very light intensities of the “smooth” and Inflate" functions to even things out periodically…without imprinting with all the “playdough” like qualities you’re trying to avoid. And the Symmetry functions in ZB are brilliant. If youre like me, with practice, youll find yourself wondering what the justification is at all for doing static imagery in an animation package.

here are some general tips that will make your models look less lumpy, and therefore z-amaturish…

Just take your time. Zbrush let’s the artist work very quickly and intuitively, but that doesn’t mean you must to rush. just slow down and think about the quality of the model, not how fast you can get it done.

Don’t be so quick to subdivide. Just because you can work with millions of polys at smooth frame rates doesn’t mean you need to do so right away. You should always push the most of the polys you have at the current subdivision level before going higher, it’s a big payoff later on.

Constantly smooth as you’re modeling. It’ll help to rid your mesh of the lumpiness seen in a lot of people’s work who are just starting off with Zbrush.

Remember, “Form is first” Zbrush is a powerful tool for surface sculpting but cliche detail on a crappy surface still looks crappy. Perfect your form before you begin detailing. A common mistake is to rush into detailing your mesh or in contrast, stop sculpting when there is slim to no detail at all. Take the time to make sure your model ‘works’ without the need for shaders, textures, or high frequency detail, if it does, then proceed with all the fancy stuff.

Shaders before textures…that’s just my personal preference

Work on building an ever-growing library of alpha brushes. A good set of alpha brushes will create some brilliant results when it’s time for surface sculpting.

The same is true for animated models. Build an ever-growing library of low poly generic meshes with good topology, then use zbrush to create variations. A good example of this is was Taron’s video that he showed at the last Pixologic user group meeting where he created about 6 vastly different animated characters all from a single low poly mesh.

Thank you all for the help and suggestions. I think the the info posted here will help me quite a bit, and probably many other artists too.

It’s pretty much the same as painting. Use as big of a brush as possible, Work from the general to the specific. Smoothing as you go helps a ton, but none of this will make any difference if you don’t exercise patience!

thanks for starting this discussion stephen. I’ve been thinking about the same thing.

one possibly obvious tip for your “flaking stone” look might be yo photoshop up some flaked stone images and bust up the contrast an grayscale or B/W it and use this as an alpha mask and use the inflate tool once masked.

hey, great advice…

one question though…

what do you mean by “shaders before textures”?