@Mahlikus The Black and Zeddicus:
Nice suggestions. I’ve also often thought it a waste to have nothing assigned to the middle mouse button.
You may be interested to know that I’ve added your idea to a list of suggestions I’m keeping in this thread: http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?p=886321#post886321
woah! ‘Clay Time’ coool:D
looove it
I have a suggestion for ZBrush 4r2!!!
Why not have a front and side view running at the same time for sculpting?? I have found that if I had both views I could do sculptures of peoples portraits much faster if only I could see front and side at the same time.
Also, the claytime will be kind of cool to play with, like sculptris. But the one thing I didnt like about sculptris is the inability to go up and down in subdivisions to move larger masses of clay. This is a function of ZBrush that I love!
Oh yes and also, the retopological function is anoying to use in the sense that the new retopo mesh on the backside of the sculpture interferes with the mesh on the front side of the sculpt. Shifting the transparency levels doesnt help the problem either. This function needs to be looked at a bit. Maybe retopo using paint functions rather than specific mesh verts.
sure ;), that’s not the point.
I just wanted to point out that you don’t get a feel for how complicated or not complicated a process is when it is played 20x faster.
I’m doing the same type of speed modeling for a long time ,using unify skin.
And i get 1 h of work on the full body character…but i gues that this will improve 5 min from my time laps (i hope the they will keep the unify skin to…)
I’d love to see a re-vamped draw/focal/intensity display. Since some of the Sculptris-ESQUE stuff (DynaMesh) is making it’s way into zbrush, it would be nice to see that kind of simple all-in-one display. I know it’s there using the spacebar (same as Sculptris), but the Sculptris one just feels much nicer to use.
Edited for clarity. 
Correct me if I’m wrong by didn’t a certain ZBC staff member point out that dynamesh has nothing to do with sculptris? Ok, I’m really here to say that this is awesome, hope it’s as good to use as to watch
Guess I’m in a different perspective. I’ve played it frame by frame to the point of seeing it at normal speed. That and I’ve been modeling organically like that in Z since '02 so I know exactly what’s going on. Rest assured, it’s not complicated at all.
GRIN!!!
That makes me rather happy!
How do you guys think the topology of that thing in the video look like?
Is there an option to like paint to mark groups and create equal amount of polygons per group?
Say we have a plane, create two bumps, paint those bumps each with a number, then create a new mesh out from that with new topology based on the groups we just marked.
sure it is NOT Sculptris BUT what else should DrPetter do at Pixo than things like Dynamesh? 
I think Dynamesh goes far beyond what we expect by seeing this video. If you watch the previous sneek peek video #2 closely there is a auto UV-Creation going on while Dynamesh sculpting. I think this means there have to be an underlying auto retopo function. I saw a thread in sculptris forum where DrPetter talks about autoretopo:
Now imagine what this algorithm can do in conjunction with Dynamesh…
I’m curious…
my 2 cents
So with this new release of ZBrush & Dynamesh does this make Sculptris obsolete??
No, Sculptris is a fantastic program in its own right, it is also something that leads rather naturally to Zbrush. Weather Pixologic and Dr. Peter keep developing it remains to be seen. In my opinion not doing so would diminish the chance that people like me who loved Sculptris would go and buy Zbrush.
I am reasonably sure that I am not the only person who has gotten Sculptris and needed more.
This is just a guess on my part but if I am wrong I would be rather surprised.
I think I referred to Sculptris as the ultimate gateway drug leading to Zbrush in this thread a while ago, and for me it is, I still use both.
Sculptris you can learn with no experience in about an hour, Zbrush is to put it simply, not.
Its funny that I have had Zbrush for eight months now and stil cannot do most of the things I can do in Sculptris in it, dynamesh looks like it might be the tipping point for that but I bet I still use Sculptris a lot because its fast, easy and most important to me FUN.
I watched the video 100 times and I am pretty sure that Dynamesh doesnt work exactly like sculptris… and the difference is not only that it works with quads. I have the feeling that dynamesh creates a very regular topology with quads of the same size, I think that is really a great idea and very different aproach to free sculpting than sculptris
If dynamesh works like i think, its perfect for sketching the overall proportions, define the planes and shapes, then subdivide and make the details… while in sculptris you can add the details from the begining…different ideas, both of them very cool, but i think dynamesh is going to be the best.
Retopo:
i think there are some misconceptiosn about this…you can “retopo” as in create new topology to allow further deformations or you can “retopo” for a particular flow or for optimization purposes
Auto Retopo in the first context will be something like what remesh does: a retopology on the fly with evenly distributed quads…but this resullt doesnt gurantee neither a specific edgeflow nor an optimized density
optimized density=more polys were more curvature is needed and less where its flat or straight opposed to evenly spaced quads everywhere.
This is what explains the general misunderstanding about topology since a “good topology” will always be a compromise…a personal choice, a pipeline compromise and a technical limitation.
an evenly spaced mesh is less optimum in desnity than an uneven one…a mesh made of only quads is less optimized too…tehrefore if you want evenly spaced and all quads you will end up with much higher res meshes and if you rather have optimized meshes you will end up with, in its more extreme form, a triangulated mesh.You can actually witness this while using Decimation Master which using a curvature based algo is capable of representing a surface why identical detail using a very small fraction of the original mesh density
Here’s a quick 3dtotal interview at Siggraph 2011 with some info:
http://www.3dtotal.com/siggraph_diaries/exhibitor_pixologic.html
Pixolator: Where’s Making time for Art #4 ??? hint hint 
Yeah yeah! starts chanting Time for Art 4! Time for Art 4! Time for Art 4!