To Anyone Who May Have An Answer or May Be Interested???

[Kruzr]

‘Afternoon all . . . :)

I would like to know if there should be any difference in the "Optimize" feature for an object? There exists a slider for controlling the amount of optimization on an object, but it doesn't seem to matter how you adjust it? I can set the slider to optimize at 10, or at 100, or anything in between, but there is no difference in the results. The polygon reductions count in each case results in the same amount? And the visual results are also the same? I don't mean to sound a little slow or anything like that, but I'm under the understanding that if you have a slider for controlling the amount of an action on an object, you should get different results in the final action? But not in this case. :(

While I'm on the subject . . . How about the Masking of a portion of an object, & inverting the Mask to limit an action to that certain area? I realize that in most of the actions in Zbrush, this is the case, but when using the "Optimize" feature on an object, this doesn't seem to apply? It would be extremely useful & much easier to work with, in the modeling process of an object, if you were able to "Optimize" just the unmasked area, for polygon reduction. If you use the Optimize feature as it is now, your whole object becomes Optimized & you lose detail in all areas, which is not what would be happening if "Masking & Optimize" worked together? :(

If these two features were corrected to work as a person expected that they should, it sure would make life in the 3D modeling world a lot easier for Zbrush users. If there is no way to alter these two actions in the Zbrush architecture, then I think the Optimize slider should be removed from the interface, so as not to confuse users? I also think that if an unmasked area of an object will not result in an action taking place on that localized area, as in the actions of other tools, then it should be posted in the manual, again so users wouldn't be confused as to why this isn't working as one would think? ;)

Several times now I have given up on sculpting a model in Zbrush, due to the two items above not functioning as I thought they should. I don't know how others feel about this, but I feel that they are both very important features to have working properly in Zbrush. It would make "Zbrush Life" much easier to cope with. :D

Thanks in advance for any constructive input or comments on this subject & have a good one . . . :cool: Mark.

[banez]

try
Modidfiers>Deformation
and chose the the second orange arrow ::
to open up the other panel and chose>Optimize.
i don't think the Slider working because your not hiting the Divide button on BOTTOM in Deformation after you moved the slider
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1006217629caj.jpg
Masking a portion and optimizeing it

[Pixolator]

Hi,
Kruzr: The image posted by EZ (thanks EZ :) ) is an example of masked-optimization of a Sphere3D object, here is an example of applying the ‘Optimize’ function to a masked Plane3D object…
http://www.pixolator.com/images01/MaskOpti.gif
Note: You should apply Optimize and Divide functions prior to texturing a 3D object as these actions do modify the number of polygons in the mesh and the UV coordinates assigned to these polygons. Optimizing an unmasked 3D object will produce the least amount of ‘texture-shift’ distortion as it allows ZBrush to evenly optimize the mesh.

Hope this helps :)
-Pixolator

[Kruzr]

'Evening . . . :)

Thanks to EZ & Pixolator both for your replies. I don't mean to sound ungrateful for your information, because I'm not. :D But I was already aware of how to operate the Optimize function in ZBrush. The main reason for my post was, "That it didn't work like it should," & therefore I thought that it may have not been implemented as of yet. Wrong again! :(

After messing with it for quite a while, I just went ahead & did a complete uninstall of ZBrush. At the same time I did an uninstall of Norton System Works 2000, being that I recently purchased Norton System Works 2002. After installing the new version of Norton & doing a reboot of my system, I did a reinstall of Zbrush ver. 1.23b. Now, I don't know if uninstalling either one of the software had anything to do with it or not, but the Optimize now works properly, like it should have before the uninstall. Maybe Norton's software had something to do with it??? I did alter the settings in Norton this time to deactivate the "Norton Auto Protect" feature of the software. I've read several articles pertaining to this feature having compatibility problems with some software. :rolleyes:

Anyway, everything is working fine now in ZBrush. I do have one puzzling question though: Why, after doing a complete uninstall of Zbrush, did it accept my permanent serial number with no problems at all, after doing the reinstall? I'm not complaining ya'understand, just curious. :confused:

As I stated earlier, thanks to both of you for taking the time to answer my questions . . . very much appreciated. ;)

OK, back to ZBrush again. Have a good one . . . :cool: Mark.

[impending]

Hi Kruzr, EZ & Pix,

Once again Pix you reveal info that makes me go Whoa . . . . I didn't know that
:rolleyes:

Kruzr, I was with you - since day one I thought I could only optimize the entire object, often wanting to optimize only a portion. So after reading this I tried it again and the optimization disregarded my masking and optimized the entire object . . . . WHEN I optimized at 100%. Sure enough as you kindly illustrate Pix - at 50% it works great. I can keep high detail where needed and obliterate the rest
http://www.webperception.com/jdorsey/optimized.jpg

Which leads me to a question: I always assumed (yes, this is dangerous ;) ) that the inability to optimize just a portion of an object was related to the bleed of "divide" outside of the masked areas. Since it's obviously not, why does a division run outside of the masked areas? One reason I ask is if the division did not bleed - my need to optimize would be reduced. Inquiring minds want to know ;)

Thanks

jd

[THEJAB]

Thanks so much, I have it working now.

[Mentat7]

This seems to work well enough on 3d primitives but I have not been able to get it to work successfuly with unified or adaptive skins.

[cneofotistos]

er.. I'm not an expert on technical details, but I remember that when we talked it over with Thelonious, we agreed that the slider's function is this; at 100%optimise doesn't respect your selection at all, and optimises everything.
at 10% optimise, it will better respect your selection.

note, that at 10% optimise will have the exact same "optimising" effect on the area it affects as 100% (i.e. it will make a 1000-face polygon into an 100-faced one)

I hope I (and thelonious) were of some help.

[rhom]

Impending has asked a question that has always puzzled me.I'll be standing by for the answer.

[gummie]

I don't know for sure, but that was a thing that always ticked at me whether it's just a question of design limitation, perhaps Pixolator has a better answer. My guess is that the Zbrush algorithm (mainly used for modelling and deformation) requires even subdivision across laterals but I must admit, I've never worked with imported objects.
Or perhaps Zbrush does not retain individual polygon boundaries such as vertex information as in conventional 3d programs, making the subdivision ignore neighbouring divisions.. The masking does not square out.