I work in the 64 version of ZBrush and I have a limit in 4096 of resolution. This is not enough for full body! I do not understand why the 64 version has this limitaion, because there is no limit of amount of memory! Is there any way to avoid this limitation, for example to write some command or correct the some file?
You do know the res limit is per subtool?
Yes, but I don’t want to break the character into parts and then it will be hard to merge and stich it back, and it will be imposible to do it with DynaMesh without loss of detail. I dont understand why DynaMesh has this limitation, i have lot of free memory and model has small final polycount. PS: Texture size also has limitation.
Now people have computers not Pentium 3
Could you tell me please the pipeline how it is best to stich parts of geometry in ZBrush?
Dynamesh simply has practical upper limits, and is best used at medium to medium-high poly resolution before transitioning to a traditional multiple subdivision level workflow. It is intended as a way to rapidly establish form at low to mid poly level, not to replace the need for traditional subdivision levels for fine detail.
You can increase the size of the mesh in the zbrush worldspace. This will cause Zbrush to devote more polygons to it during dynamesh, but it will eventually start requiring so much time to dynamesh on a given system, that it will become impractical to use.
Once you are ready to start adding fine detail and need increased poly resolution, create a new low poly mesh with ZRemesher or otherwise, subdivide it sufficiently to hold the detail, andproject the detailfrom the original mesh onto it. This will give you the benefit of working on a multiple subdivision level mesh for high res detail, with clean, well distributed base geometry that you can UV and generate maps from if necessary. By this point in your process you should be beyond needing to remesh frequently, but if you do, simply repeat the process and project again.
Thank you. What do you mean by worldspace? I tried increase and decrease the scale, but this does not effect the mesh density and the size of the faces.
PS: I really want to work as a classical sculptor without dependence to the topology structure and with details. But ZB has stupid limitations :C
I really want to be able to drive to work in a flying car, but car technology has stupid limitations. 
I suggest you look around to really find out what your options are. Perhaps you can find a tool better suited for what you want to do. Sculptris, for instance has a very free form sculptorly workflow, but I think you’ll find that it, like most alternatives hits a performance wall for high resolution detail at a certain point. You may come to find Zbrush’s ability to comfortably work on a mesh with 30 million polygons for fine detail on even moderate hardware, more appealing. And if you find a tool you’re more comfortable with, great!
But consider this. A classic sculptor workflow requires discipline. All artistic mediums (oils, watercolor, clay, etc) require discipline, and there’s a certain order things have to be done for maximum efficiency. There are no undos, there is no automated symmetry. In the early stages real world clay sculpting involves layering chunks of clay to rapidly establish form, with little attention paid to fine detail. After the form reaches a certain level of accuracy, large scale changes to the form are no longer made, and the work begins refining and adding fine detail. The artist knows that if a large scale change is made after this point, it would require a bit of effort to fix, and some fine detail is certain to be lost.
That’s what Dynamesh is. It’s for that beginning to middle stage of blocking out rough form. Once your rough form is more or less right, then you start in on fine detail. Your need for frequent remeshing at this point should be mostly finished. All you need at this point is more polygons for fine detail, and all you need for that is to press a single button (subdivide). You needn’t be concerned about topology at all. And if you decide you need to need to remesh again at any point after to make a large scale change, Zbrush gives you the tools to save the detail that would have otherwise been lost, another thing a real world sculptor doesn’t have.
If you’re having trouble, I’d suggest it may be because you haven’t quite yet mastered the discipline necessary for your medium of choice. You may be trying to layer on fine detail before the basic underlying form has been achieved, something that would be as problematic for a real world sculptor as a digital one. Because Dynamesh resolution is absolutely sufficient for capturing form and mid level detail. Once you’re ready to start carving in muscle definition and wrinkles, it’s time for the next stage, which involves subdivision (multiple subdivision levels is a benefit real world sculptors would love to have, by the way–it allows you to work on a mesh with various level of responsiveness to change)
And while we might wish we never have to worry about topology or look at a polyframe, if you ever want to do anything with your models other than look at them in Zbrush, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that is a necessary aspect of the digital 3d medium, and will be for the foreseeable future. If you have no tolerance for that, stick to clay. Because if you want to export your creations to another program, animate them, or prepare them for 3d printing, you will have to become comfortable with this aspect of the medium.
I truly hope this helps you to look at things in a different (and necessary) light. But I wish you luck with whatever you do.
Thanks, I understand your position. I just thought dynames is alternative path of sculpting and not an intermediate stage.
This limit of res has no technical restrictions on 64 systems, I’m afraid the developers artificially restricted all sorts of errors on weak and medium computers with low memory, thus making the meanness for holders of normal computers. The same applies to textures. Mari can make the texture size 32K.
I made noise, because these restrictions are clearly spelled out somewhere one line in internal settings, maybe someone knows how to fix them?
No, there are no “settings” to change, no way to magically improve the technology beyond what it’s currently capable of. The available resolution for dynamesh has increased in subsequent versions, and may continue to do so. If it was capable of being unlimited in the current version of the program, it would be.
If you believe that polygon resolution has no meaning on 64 bit hardware/software, I again encourage you to look around to discover the reality of the situation. 64 bit is not a magic bullet for unlimited polycounts. It simply lets us work with larger files. There are other practical limitations on polycounts, as well as limitations on a sophisticated mechanism that rewires meshes like Dynamesh does.
I’ve told you what you will need to do. I’m afraid your choice here is to accept this and join the ranks of professionals and amateurs who use Zbrush every day to create breathtakingly detailed models, or to move on and hopefully find something that works better for your needs.
Spyndel, I understand your opinion and I agree with him. But I’m still interested to hear alternative ways too. Are you a package developer, so confident in this code component and the inability of current technologies? I just have not heard about problems with the number of voxels resolution per box except slow down of speed. For example OpenVDB mesher doesn’t have such small limits(his limit is 2147483647x2147483647x2147483647).
I’ve removed the restriction on the size of the texture in viewport in XSI this restriction was made as a protection against excess memory
Doug Jones, Thank you. It is clear now how they officially positioning DM( low and middle resolution ), I hope in the future there will be less technical restrictions and less manipulation of mesh reincarnation, i wanna just sculpring abstract clay)
The resolution setting is very deceptive. If you increase/or reduce the size of your piece it affects how many ploys you end up with. Need more? Make your piece bigger, but remember you then have to do something to the mesh and redybamesh it before charges will take effect.
Also, people will tell you what dynamesh ‘is for’ etc, and they’re not wrong, but that doesn’t mean you have to use it that way. I have many completed (and printed models) that were done entirely in Dynamsh. Just try to break into subtools where you can.
Search for my jonny Rico if you want an example.
If you believe there are better alternatives out there, by all means go and find them. I’ve used most of them, and personally find that when time comes for adding ultra fine detail, that there’s no real substitute for Zbrush’s extreme polygon potential and friendly system performance. As I said, at some point if you’re going to do anything with your models other than look at them, they have to become polygonal meshes, and that’s where the performance realities can be seen.
But you may find something that’s better suited for your tastes. Maybe you dont need as much fine detail potential or system performance, and prioritize free form modeling more. In that case, there are things that might better suit you. If there was one only one way of working that was clearly better, everyone would be using it. But I don’t think the reality of present technology is quite what you imagine it is. Give it another ten years, and who knows?
No, Im not a developer. I’m a user with more than ten years of experience with this program and others, and you asked for my input when you posted on this board. I’ve given you good advice, even if it’s not what you want to hear.
As I understand dynamesh resolution is the number of voxels (or similar components)on one side (of the larger side-marker of cotnainer, cube has 4090x4096x4096 grid), scaling does not help here, if you keep one hand palm his bounding box will be smaller and the resolution per unit will increase. Correct me if I’m wrong
Spyndel, Thank you for the advice. Most likely I will use your pipeline)
A technical issue still remains, and maybe someone knows the answer (correct one line in cfg GUI file and call function avoiding GUI), and may be the developers will pay attention
As have I. Before ZModeler I used Dynamesh extensively for detailed hard surface projects that lent themselves well to being chopped up and recombined at will. But the OP has already been advised to both increase the scale of his tool, as well as to split into subtools. He said he’s working on a full body figure and doesn’t want to split into further subtools.
For a contiguous full body mesh that requires fine detail, at some point Dynamesh just becomes inadequate to capture detail over that complex a surface area, no matter how large you make it, or impractical to use because of the severe slowdowns when re-meshing dense objects. Learning how to work with multiple subdivision levels aided by occasional reprojection is not only the best advice to give for that situation, it’s the key to so much flexibility in zbrush.
So maybe be less concerned with what other “people” (like the official Pixologic documentation) say that Dynamesh is for, and more concerned with giving the most useful advice to an inexperienced user who has a specific problem.
How to sew body parts (Subtools) in ZBrush? I know only DM booleans
No problem bud. I hope you find something that works for you. But trust me, if the developers were in a position to give you unlimited polygon resolution with dynamesh, unconstrained by performance realities, they would do it. That would be a tremendous selling point for a commercial product. They’re just not there yet, and they’re not trying to keep your super powerful computer down.
I’m not kidding when I encourage you to go out and work with different available tools though, so you can maybe see the situation from a more informed point of view. There are lots of demos available. My personal opinion is that Zbrush’s strengths outweigh the perceived limitations and that it looks a lot better when someone sees what the limitations might be elsewhere. But your needs could be different than mine, and you might find something that fits them better.