wiki updates will start appearing soon enough… perhaps we could be the ones to fill in on this issue 
you’ll get no argue from me that it would be more convenient to have it documented in the 1st place though
Doesn’t work for me either, which is very strange cause my other models, much more complex then this, are working fine.
Also it seems all the default models on the splash screen (Soldier, the dog etc) work fine with 100% sym, except for the sphere which gives 0% !!
Maybe it just doesn’t like simple models cause they insult it or something :lol:
lol … you know… you might not be crazy for thinking so because similar idea did spring to mind 
Well it seems you are right, we both are not as crazy as you may think.
If i take that blob, and i do this to it, i suddenly get full symmetry.
So it is definitely looking for some sort of complexity minimum in the mesh. Damned if i know what though.
Attachments
great find man! you’re right… if i do that i get full symmetry as well…
ok… that’s a clue… so what’s new in the model- it’s 5 edge pole!.. ie 5 edges that share same vert… you don’t have such a pole in startup sphere and you do have it in the soldier for example…
Looks like it’s designed to recognize anatomy to me.
hahah lol! 
cool conceptual thinking there marcus!
ok… it looks like it needs 3 poles to figure out symmetry…
with two poles i got 1.5% (ie those 4 verts out of 130 total/ 2… i get exactly the same value- 1.53846%) and with 3 i got full symmetry… see attached image…
i’m so glad it makes more sense now… i was looking so much toward this feature and it’s relieving to know how to make it work
Attachments
Could be right, this doesn’t work either so perhaps 3 poles is the minimum you need.
Looks like it’s designed to recognize anatomy to me.
Or breasts haha
Attachments
But wait, this also fails (and it has 4 poles)
Attachments
bah!
at least it works if you make breasts for it… i tried
perhaps you need more poles as you have more axis of symmetry (topologically wise)… your model for example has 3… and even though you probably didn’t activate all 3, perhaps that’s the way algorithm works
Hmm, looks like this feature don’t like models which symmetrical MORE then one axis? Or have radial symmetry?
Could be… In this, the top one doesnt work (i get 1.6% sym) while the bottom one gives full sym !
Maybe it does indeed calculate the complexity on each axis independantly…
So what have we got so far:
-
Try to make sure your model is at least complex enough to have 6 poles (3 on each side.)
-
Try to avoid models that have more then one axis of sym.
Now i need a beer whew…
Attachments
While I admire the efforts of users to try to figure this out, this “how to figure out the feature” game does not seem like a very fun game to play.
Any chance we can get some insight from the developer?
right… definitely seems connected to no. of axis of symmetry! that’s ok because most characters have only one axis of symmety anyway…
so… requirements for posable symmetry to work so far are:
- only tris and quads
- one axis of symmetry topologically wise
- at least 3 poles on one side of your model
doesn’t seem to be connected to quality or presence of uv maps…
Seems a bit goofy, yes.
This is zbrush dude, “how to figure out the feature” is all you’re gonna get
But yeh it would be awesome if someone in the know could clear this stuff up, would make me a lot more confident about the tool then my guesses do…
The documentation will be available as soon as possible. Not ideal, but then perhaps it is better to have the feature to experiment with than not at all?
totally support that way of thinking! if i have to chose i’ll rather have 3.1 without documentation then don’t have it all…
That’s the problem with ZB. The features should be documented before they’re developed. You gotta know what you’re making before you develop it, so why not put it down on paper as a feature spec?
Create a simple requirements to feature mapping and type it out on a couple pages. I can’t believe that documentation has to be prepared AFTER the feature and release is out (that is ass backwards).
Anyways, ZB is solid and I havn’t run into this issue yet so I am just bitching because as a software developer, I hate when people start coding before anyone knows WTF they’re even doing. Seems like something that’s totally missing from the academic system these days.