ZBrushCentral

Feature Request: Tunneling Brush (Making Holes With Dynamesh).

Hi there ZBC!

Still lovin’ me some ZBrush, but I see a ‘hole’ as it were in the program that I think is low-hanging fruit for a killer new feature; the TUNNELING BRUSH!

Here’s the need I see, trouble with existing-methods and the concept in-detail:

The current-methods of making holes are not very good, and are incongruously-difficult compared to the awesome power of Dynamesh and ZBrush modeling in general.

  1. Insert primitives are awkward, and put you into translation/rotation/scale mode which isn’t very fluid, exciting, etc. It would be easier to simply use a brush which can ‘tunnel’ through a mesh in exactly the same way you would sculpt normally, with scale/intensity features per normal.

  2. Extraction is non-ideal, because of the nature of extraction. This method is already there and may be useful for some things, but a brush that one can switch-to for tunneling whilst sculpting would be better!

  3. Shadowbox works, but it’s not something everyone likes to use just because of how it works. It’s an option, but not intuitive like a brush.

  4. Trim or sculpting is ok, but doesn’t punch through the mesh…even in thin spots.

TUNNELING BRUSH CONCEPT!

Ok, so here’s how I envision the tunneling brush working.

Basically, you would set size and intensity as usual, except a tunneling brush eats away at the mesh as you go. It’s not just flattening it, but carving away at it as you sculpt. So, if you went far enough into a Dynamesh sphere, the tunneling brush would eat through the other side, like a boring machine. Making shallow depressions is quite easy right now, but a hole all the way through the mesh is just more-difficult than it seems like it should be.

So, let’s say someone is carving a figure out of a single Dynamesh primitive. Start making your figure, and you find that you need a hole where the arm comes away from the body. The insert primitive is ok, but it’s a little fiddly. Imagine a tunneling brush where you could just start carving a hole right where you need it, and in a way that’s intuitive and satisfying. Bam. Now you have a bonafide hole. Swipe your stylus twice times to re-project (Dynamesh) and you’re right back to sculpting.

The INVERSE of the tunneling brush would be a positive tunnel or ‘tube’, which would be a great way to create limbs, fingers, tree branches, etc. This would be like clay-buildup, but always using the last built geo to stack new geo on top (making tubes, basically, in a more intuitive way).

It’s good to have a few ways to do things, especially since people work in different ways. I never use the shadowbox, because I just don’t like working like that (though I am sure it has its uses and that some people swear by it). I prefer not to use the insert meshes if I can help it, and I find that they sometimes don’t work. It’s not ‘immediate’ enough feedback for me, and not as satisfying as sculpting. Also, if you don’t need a very precise hole (Dynamesh), then a quick and dirty ‘tunneling brush’ hole would be better than a fiddly negative insert primitive.

Waddya think?

Thanks for listening!

Dan Burke

hide (and delete) your geo on both sides of your mesh and use the bridge brush.

http://docs.pixologic.com/user-guide/3d-modeling/sculpting/sculpting-brushes/curve-bridge/

Dynamesh will actuall create holes if your mesh get close enough together. But yes, getting dynamesh to behave like voxels would be good. I’m not sure if it is possible though, but I’m just an artist, so what do I know?

what about make your tunnel in other subtool and boolean? I truly think this is the best way to keep things tidy for after edits, if necesary.

Yeah, but instead of all that, it’d be nice to have an easier way to carve holes…(not just depressions) with some kind of brush that can create holes without all the kludges and workarounds, and whilst using the intuitive brush features.

How about it, Pixologic?

Thanks for that reply, btw. I will try the bridging thing but it sounds unpleasant. :wink:

Dan