Nice blog, good read!
R2 is fantastic. I really love Dynamesh and think its great for fleshing out ideas. The other features are excellent also. You guys at Pixo should be proud. Zbrush has been a great investment 
I think Dynamesh is the most awesome thing in Zbrush, and can easily do a decently detailed mesh with it as well. If I can suggest that in retopo mode you could hide by polygroup, something like 3d coat’s, so you can approach the hard approachable areas such as armpit etc. It would mean the world, and I wouldn’t have to go outside Zbrush ever ;)
Meh. What people have been asking for for YEARS: 64bit, texture painting, better retopo tools. It is still faster for me to model my base meshes then use this clumsy dynamesh toolset. We didn’t need this–it’s a novelty.
I’m with you!
I think Dynamesh is the most awesome thing in Zbrush, and can easily do a decently detailed mesh with it as well. If I can suggest that in retopo mode you could hide by polygroup, something like 3d coat’s, so you can approach the hard approachable areas such as armpit etc. It would mean the world, and I wouldn’t have to go outside Zbrush ever
23 Hours Ago
I’m with you too, but it’s obvious that you didn’t take sculptris and the excellent GoZ seriously. Sorry cherub, I had to say this. To most of zbrush users actually. Facing retopo as the most serious method to go beyond concept sketching, makes sculptris a more enchanting tool than dynamesh.
hey , i met small problem , i made model mostly in “r1” , than i wanted to play with dynamesh so i go to r2 , made changes , made polymesh3d , saved it as a tool , and cant open the tool in older version 
,is it only me ?
I love Sculptris, I think it’s a great little (in scope, not stature) program. I’m delighted the creator is now working with Pixologic.
That said, everyone has personal preferences and favorite tools, but I don’t see a pressing need to open Sculptris ever again, unless it makes some compelling expansion to it’s toolset. It certainly doesn’t obviate the need for deliberate retopo.
There are one or two (fairly inconsequential) things that dynamic tessellation does, that cant be done quite the same way in Zbrush. There is one brush I wish was recreated a little more faithfully in Zbrush. But 95% of the things I ever used Sculptris for (concept/base mesh, pulling out a figure from a single glob of clay) I can do just as well with Dynamesh, and Dynamesh does roughly a million things that Sculptris can’t even dream of doing, with Zbrush performance and power. And let’s face it, GoZ is a bit of a kludge. I’m glad it’s there, but I wont use it unless I have to.
I wholeheartedly disagree that dynamesh is a novelty. It is, for me, nothing less very fulcrum that will begin to shift all my modelling of any type into Zbrush. The tests Im doing now indicate its about a wash for complex hard surface stuff. My traditional polygon modelling workflow does some things better, Zbrush/dynamesh does others, and the time differential is rapidly becoming insignificant. A simple usability pass on Zbrush’s existing functionality could well tip the scales. I’m not saying it’s there yet, but I see the horizon. More importantly, it’s simply the way that I as an artist want to work. I can explore more interesting shapes without the constraint of quad patterns, which tend to force you into predictable geometry. Plus though its no longer as important to me, I still think we’ll probably see dynamic tessellation in ZB at some point. But I am very excited about the things I am doing right now in ZB with the DM arsenal, and am extremely grateful Pixologic has given me these tools, again, for free.
Topology editing tools remain the great barrier. I’d be lying if I said I still use ZB for heavy retopo work. I agree this is a priority. Since we know 64 bit is on the way, retopo tools are really the missing link. They’re the key to everything else. After that, it’s mostly usability issues and points of compatibility. But I dont think anyone who’s worked at length with DM and tipped to the possibilities could possibly dismiss it as a “novelty”.
Guys, I have a question.
I read that dynamesh work with 1024x1024x1024 size cube. Ok.
I have model for 2 Different projects, so they has different sizes.
When I working with one of them - 512 resolution of dynamesh - allow me to do almost every details.
But on another one - 1024 of dynamesh - is too low.
Yes, if I scale second model - density of it will be more. But i can’t scale it, cuz i have base mesh as example.
Is there any way to make it more density mesh? Change dynamesh cube size or to make resolution more than 1024 ?
Okay so I have been playing with the new Z4R2 and, while I was working, some things hit me like a foot to the face!
I’m not sure how possible the following may seem but, since Pixologic and ZBrush are all about Freedom, these ideas excited me:
Render Palette> BPR RenderPass Subpalette>…
Add these channels if possible:
Polygroup Masking; which renders random flat colors of all visible polygroups (oh so helpful for PS compositing)
Subtool Masking; which renders random flat colors of all visible subtools (VERY helpful for PS compositing)
If you decide to implement subtool folders, there could be another two buttons that color by folder or color by polycount! This too could be very useful in the conceptual/compositing stage (when combined with PS)!
Render Lowest wireframe! Another helpful visual! Especially if combined with the timeline. To be able to render two movies: 1: as intended. 2: Pure wireframe. Then I could uses such assets to make a more dynamic presentation!
Also, the implementation of curve growth slider in the stroke palette. That, combined with a timeline ability to Animate selective curve!
This would be key to motion graphic artists! We all love seeing flourishes grow in animation. Imagine horns and teeth (and anything that my current understanding can’t even begin to understand/initiate!) Imagine all this…growing…In Z, at our whim…
Some of my ideas.
Cheers
~MAH~
There is one brush I wish was recreated a little more faithfully in Zbrush
A brush of sculptris, which one? The crease tool? lol. You can, it almost there but not faithfully because of the lack of dynamic tessellation and all this crispness it provides. Sculptris has minimum tools and this is great. But dynamic tessellation is the key for this.
You know what Sculptris does that dynamesh cannot?
It uses things like the mousewheel to zoom and that is one HUGE feature.
Do you know that I have NEVER resized my brush in Sculptris?
I dont resize it because I dont have to. I can zoom with impunity and with out effort or thought.
I should add here that I also think that dynamesh and Sculptris are so different that I should not be comparing them.
Dynamesh is something I suspect I will grow to love, Sculptris already is.
What is this “Mouse” you speak of, and why would one use it for sculpting?
[pointless wall of text deleted]
it works with the little wheel thingy on wacom tablets as well
Welllllllllll It Could be something like a http://www.logitech.com/en-us/gaming/mice-keyboard-combos/devices/wireless-gaming-mouse-g700 combined with a http://www.logitech.com/en-us/gaming/mice-keyboard-combos/devices/5123 such as I frequently use. Highly programmable and combined with macros and hotkeys a not to be taken lightly sculpting set up. Oh wait I have a Intuos also, but when I need precision I use my mouse. I usually use the intuos when I am sketching but Rarely use it for sculpting. I find the mouse wheel comes in handy from time to time :rolleyes:
The tools a person uses for sculpting is dictated not by someones elses preference but by ones own preference and general overall money situation. 
You have to recall Spyndel. There are an awful lot of Hobbyists not just Pros that frequent these forums and have been doing so since Zbrush first launched 
[Deleted on account of pointlessness, and not wanting to muddy the thread. Carry on.]
I refuse to believe that you exist.
Yes and opinions dont exist either. :lol:
You two are splendid!
This is very funny!
Frankenstein never scarred me…