That thread never mentioned ZBrush 2.5 or the current tools of Mesh Extraction. Talk about frustrating the masses.
Mesh Extraction will be the big winner for ZBrush 2.5 I’m sure…yup yup
so great…so cool…I love Zbrush more and more!
It was posted amongst other discussion of 2.5, so if that wasn’t explicitly stated, it was certainly understood at the time. (the use of new features is explained here, actually. But, note that the version number “2.5” had not been announced yet, so that search term won’t help you find early discussions)
Note also that his extracted wires have their own topology, independant of the mesh they were extracted from.
when are you releasing zbrush 2.5 ??? pls tell me 
I understand your point Ctrl-Z, but many people post their work in these forums without listing all of their tools used.
It’s discouraging to show work that others might try to emulate, but then not say… oh I also used this tool which you don’t have access to, or I modeled this by altering a preexisting model, or this really took me and several other people 3 months to complete not 2 weeks by myself…etc.
There are various misrepresentations of work I’ve seen by some just to get their egos stroked.
I thinks it’s better to say all that is true about your process to achieve certain results, so that those of us who are trying to better our skills aren’t sent in circles trying to do things that can’t be done.
Most High end work get done in serveral programs. 1 base mesh, 2 detailing / texturing, 3 rendering. You can always ask if you in doubt about what was used and how.
YogiFish,
You’re welcome to your opinion, and in general (applying to the forum at large), I think your comment is valid. It’s just in the context of THIS conversation, your conclusion was based on false information.
I edited my post a few times, so you might have missed the link, but I’m pasting directly from there:
Again, you are judging a conversation almost two years out of context. Some misunderstanding is to be expected.
Sorry to present a concern with limited information, but then again that is my point…Limited Information.
The more honest and up front information we have, artisticly and technically, the less confused we will all be.
I’d rather see less than perfect work, which represents the average users development, than to see super perfect images with false or limited information.
I use this forum for inspiration, not discouragement.
2.5 seams so sweat to me, theres everything i wanted in it…and additional some things i did’t expect…but if i had known i surely would have wanted them… 
a lot of great new tools and features…u really feel that they fix the big things that bothers most when working in zb…if new releases of other packages would only be half as user-focused …cg-world would be paradise!
what happened to the images in the thread I pointed out?
Ah they are abck.
Cheers
Mike R
more more more,
Even if they show the same features, more vids more vids, chirp
cherp churp… wine.
I would like to see more, there were recordings from siggraph… are you saving them? why? please please.
Poof!
Speaking of videos - haven’t you guys noticed something?
Ever since Ryan updated the video page with links, the ZSphere-Posing video has disappeared 
Just thought I’d mention it in case he’s accidentally missed it out, after the editing.
Errr…Ryan:
http://www.pixologic.com/zbrush/community/events/siggraph2006-boston/siggraph2006-boston.html
This is the page I meant.
Thanks for the reply though, at least now we know how to provoke a response…
…just send you into blind-panic
Sorry man, my mistake :o
The thumbnail threw me.
I thought the video where you were posing the woman had gone, because the thumbnail looked like it was for that surfacing thing.
Crawls away in disgrace
I wonder if its possible to see the transparent mesh while builing zsphere models. Could be handy. My usual lazy man thoughts.
Cheers
Mike R
The skin and zspheres might both have to be transparent, I think. I’ve certainly had areas of my adaptive skins turn out thinner than the ZSpheres which created them.
And then there’s the confusion of “what parts of this are editable right now?”
But I think with a lot of tweaking and testing to find the right implimentation, that idea definitely has merit.
yes you can do that, and you can temporaly resize the zspheres too. you can see this from the very fisrt zb2.5 videos
That was probably what inspired the question. It’s very similar, but not the same. The videos show posing and changing proportions on an existing mesh. As opposed to extending the geometry by adding or deleting ZSphere branches.
The Modeling surface rig movie clip is off the charts. This will make modeling repairs or design alteration easy as pie.
I see what the delays are for now…writing that code alone is pure Genius