Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GazzaMataz

Modo Vs C4D Modelling

Recommended Posts

Don't get me wrong Brian, I dont dislike retopology. I definitely see the advantages of it and I use it myself. I've learned to never be an idealist when you're in the business of making money - haha. I personally love to model in the traditional way ( and no not point to point) but I will not hesitate to use whatever tool gets the job done in the quickest amount of time. Like they say time is money. And time also gives you a leg up on your competition, all things being equal of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Absolutely agree! ZBrush's ZRemesher has made a huge difference to me on some jobs, where previously a mesh would be unriggable without rebuilding it from scratch now it doesn't take that long to get a decent mesh even when sent something with very high detail to start from. I still do manual retopology too though to get the mesh just right for skinning. I generally use Topogun for that but I'll probably use NEX now that it's built into Maya 2014, just haven't had time to learn it yet.

 

Cheers,

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
  • Topic Author
  • Author of the topic Posted
    He has one then showing how he retopos a head mesh for clean poly flow, he calls that one 'the boring stuff' which I guess says it all..

     

    I am a little confused about this retopo stuff. I thought that you made a basic mesh in your 3D package and then took it into ZBrush to add detail saved that as a normal or displacement map and applied it to your original low poly mesh. In this instance has PointPusher just gone straight into ZBrush and modelled a high quality head and then needs to get it back into Maya for rigging/animation?

     

    Please excuse my ignorance I have never touched ZBrush and only dabbled with the sculpting tools in C4D. My only knowledge is what I have read in magazines and I don't usually read ZBrush stuff since I don't use it. Most of my work is old fashioned polygons…

    Share this post


    Link to post

    When you are modelling in C4D, sending the mesh to Zbush and then sending it back to C4D, you are not altering the the original mesh The topology of the mesh remains the same unless you are doing a bit of extra modelling when you need it. Modelling with the correct topology is fine and a perfectly good way to go.

    Retopologizing your mesh means that you can have the structure changed to suit your needs. Your loops will be set up for better animation for instance. You can get a much neater mesh and when you have your topology sorted then it will help with any sculpting you do later on because you will have the best working mesh to sculp on.  In Zrush itself you don't have to worry about the topology so much when you are sculpting and allows you to get on with the creative stuff and then sorting out the structure later on.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Guest

    I am a little confused about this retopo stuff. I thought that you made a basic mesh in your 3D package and then took it into ZBrush to add detail saved that as a normal or displacement map and applied it to your original low poly mesh. In this instance has PointPusher just gone straight into ZBrush and modelled a high quality head and then needs to get it back into Maya for rigging/animation?

     

    Please excuse my ignorance I have never touched ZBrush and only dabbled with the sculpting tools in C4D. My only knowledge is what I have read in magazines and I don't usually read ZBrush stuff since I don't use it. Most of my work is old fashioned polygons…

    Yeah as James said above, there are two basic approaches really, one is to start with a base mesh and add detail with sculpting, the other is to just start in the sculpting app and not worry about topology at all to begin with (Dynamesh in ZBrush is a big help for that as you just keep sculpting and remesh when you need to). Once you have the forms of the model looking right then you create animation-ready topology with the sculpt as a guide. The advantage of the 2nd method is you are concentrating on one thing at a time, how the model looks first, then the topology, instead of trying to balance those.

     

    This video gives a great example of the power of dynamesh, you literally treat the model like a peice of clay, chopping it up when needed and automatically remeshing it when the polys get stretched and you need more detail.

    I hate the term 'game changer'.. but it's kind of appropriate in this case :)

     

     

    Cheers,

    Brian

    Share this post


    Link to post
  • Topic Author
  • Author of the topic Posted

    Thanks for all the replies guess I don't need Modo but perhaps ZBrush.

    And Brian thanks for those Vimeo links that chap is quite inspiring makes me wanna draw again which also makes me realise I definitely need a better Wacom...

    Share this post


    Link to post

    Right at the beginning of this thread you gave a list of what most of your modelling consists of.

     

    Unless you've stopped wanting to do that kind of modelling and just want to go down the character sculpt/retopo path I can't really see how ZBrush applies to your main workflow. Don't get me wrong, ZBrush is great and I wouldn't like to be without it, but it's not the most appropriate tool for all modelling tasks - not by a long way. Yes, I know some people do 'hard surface' modelling in ZB - but it's not easier (to execute well) than in Poly/SDS and lacks the level of control you'd have in a good traditional modeller. Sculpting a complex hard surface model and then retopoing it will take far longer and almost certainly look worse than doing it 'properly' from the start. In which case, what's the point?

     

    Mark

    Share this post


    Link to post

    I must admit I'm with Mark here. Whilst Zbrush is a great tool and one that definitely complements the C4D toolset fantastically well; if you don't often have a need for a sculpting toolset (in particular for character work) it may be overkill. I still believe that Modo has some unique features that are worth exploring and it has one of the fastest native (great quality too) rendering engines available. I'm particularly excited at the prospect of the Modo/Nuke workflow now that Modo is part of the Foundry family. Download the demo go through the wealth of free tutorials that are available and see if it clicks for your personal needs.

     

    In saying all that, there's a lot to be said for learning one single application inside out (C4D) rather than constantly dipping into a wider toolset. Considering the complexity of modern day software suites you'll probably be able to achieve more by leveraging a single application to it's full capabilities.

     

    jm

    Share this post


    Link to post

    If most of your work is "hard-surface modeling", you might be better off considering adding a package like Bonzai/FormZ, Rhino, or even MoI as such pkgs in combination with poly modelers enable certain workflows that poly modelers alone have difficulty reproducing.  Precise curved surfaces, CSG construction, and generally better tool precision overall nicely augment C4D's (or modo's) toolset.  

     

    Trading C4D for modo, or vice versa, doesn't really change the available tools / workflows by _that_ much (IMO).  In contrast, adding a NURBs/CSG modeling pkg alongside either poly modeler broadens available tools and workflows substantially.

     

    modo has better NURBs/CAD import/export plugins available overall (at additional cost), but I hear the rhinoIO plugin brings quite decent import/export to C4D as well.  I've not yet run into a situation where the built-in import/export options of my pkgs weren't adequate to my needs, but can easily picture how more complex tasks would merit investment in more capable IO plugins.

    Share this post


    Link to post


    If most of your work is "hard-surface modeling", you might be better off considering adding a package like Bonzai/FormZ, Rhino, or even MoI as such pkgs in combination with poly modelers enable certain workflows that poly modelers alone have difficulty reproducing.  Precise curved surfaces, CSG construction, and generally better tool precision overall nicely augment C4D's (or modo's) toolset.

     

    I'm in the middle of choosing a 'hard surface' modeler at the moment. At the office (IDEO), many people have been recommending Rhino (with a few suggesting MOL because it's so simple to use), however I'm a Mac man so my choice seems to be limited to FormZ/Bonzai (I'm aware there's a mac beta available for Rhino but I've been recommended to steer clear). The last time I looked at an AutoDesSys product it didn't click with me (this was admittedly a long time ago) but I've read great things about the latest version of FormZ with reference to it's combination of it's ease of use/easy access to deeper power user stuff (based on learnings from developing Bonzai). I'm going to download the latest demo of FormZ but wondered if you had any specific thoughts. I'd ideally like to go with an OS X native solution but run Parallels so can go with Rhino (or Mol) if they're the better long term solution.

     

    Thanks in advance.

     

    jm

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    FORUMS INFO:

    Dear members, we are aware of few more bugs that are still present withing the theme.We just wanted to let you know that we are working to fix them as soon as possible.
     

    NEW MEMBERS:

    Please be aware that we are manually approving all new registrations, due to spam prevention. Please be patient in case you cannot login right away, we will approve you within 12h or less if we decide you are not potential spammer. 

     

    Thanks for understanding! :cowboypistol: