German Bunker - Any tips on subdividing?

#1

Hey guys. Working on a WW2 German type 630 AT bunker. Looking for advice on how to subdivide bunker for fine sculpt detailing and polypaint in Zbrush. Bellow is a list of what I have tried so far.

->Subdividing lowpoly model import straight from Max = distorted, crumpled, pile of crap.

->Subdividing lowpoly model with heavy ZBrush creasing = faceted highpoly subtool

->Subdividing lowpoly model with SMT off in Geometry = faceted highpoly subtool

->Tried importing lowpoly model with smoothing groups from Max using Crease from Smoothing Groups plugin for ZBrush = Not enough smoothing groups possible in Max for number of smoothing groups needed in ZBrush for proper accurate creasing.

Now in regards to the crease by smoothing groups plugin problem I mentioned above, I could maybe split the lowpoly model into enough pieces in Max to allow up to 32 smoothing groups per model piece, setup all the smoothing groups for pieces and export, import each piece of low poly model into Zbrush using the import crease from smoothing groups plugin, then merge all the imported bunker piece subtools into one subtool (hopefully all the merged subtool pieces would retain their crease info), allowing the new subtool containing all the merged bunker pieces to be divided as one… Only thing I could see being problematic about this is the fact that all the model pieces are detached from one another.

This workaround I’m thinking about doing is gonna take a little while to setup so before I go ahead and try it I want to know if there is a simple way of accomplishing what I want.

Link is to a picture of low poly model from Max as well as smoothing groups in Max (What I want the highpolys chamfered edges to resemble):http://i.imgur.com/jsWweeph.jpg

#2

http://youtu.be/rZE0zJ1WPTg

#3

Cheers Informerman! I will watch the tutorial, learn, and apply your techniques/instructions to the bunker.

Boy I hope you get some sort of recognition/compensation for your excellent efforts to help the community out! I know I really appreciate all the help you have given me:)

#4

pixologic really know who i am and some other users here do all so.
i do things for a reason, if i can help out and it makes you or any one else happy then it makes me happy,
thats all to it:applause:

#5

Good enough! Will post back on thread in a bit/tomorrow with final results from the qremesher technique. Thanks again!

#6

Well I have been screwing around with QRemesher for the past 2 hours and I cannot get the results I am looking for. I will keep experimenting, but I cant quite get my head around the benefits of QRemesher for my hard surface object over dynamesh. So QRemesher basically just generates better topology for subdivided version of subtool and projects it onto the original frozen highest subdivision? I was under the assumption that QRemesher would round out my chamfered edges on bunker, like you did with a cylinder in your video, but my results were somewhat unpredictable and it seemed to distort the 90deg angles I wanted to keep :frowning:

Anyhow I will keep on chugging along with this lesson, go back over it again and again, however I thought I’d share a link to the low poly model I am using as a basis.

If you aren’t busy, or are bored and just sitting around having a beer tonight/this weekend, would you have a go at it and see what sort of results you are able to achieve using QRemesher on this model? If you don’t feel like experimenting with it that is cool, I understand. If successful let me know exactly what steps you used and as always, thanks Informerman.

Type 630 Light AT Bunker:
http://www.mediafire.com/?w4s60u7d487yl83

#7

the QRemesher is good for some things but not every thing, it all depends.

why not set your dynamesh resolution to like 240 or 300
then smooth it threw tool>deformation > polish / relax

im not sure what look your after here as the finish object

#8

Cool I will try your polish/relax suggestion!

Here is what I am trying to get as an automated process result. I did this with a 1024 res Dynamesh version of bunker, using the simple smoothing brush (holding shift) however it isn’t quite even smoothing across all chamfered edges from the low poly version. The manual smoothing ends up being apparent in the normal map I bake in xNormal (high poly Zbrush sculpt to low poly original). I suppose the manual method just means you’d have to do a good job on the smoothing, I did do this relatively quickly so perhaps being less sloppy in the smoothing of chamfers would result in better normal map…

Anyhow heres a pic link -> [http://i.imgur.com/BWP46JT.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/BWP46JT.jpg)

PS Why the heck cant I give you more reputation points...  Its not like anyone else helps me:shrug:...  Although some may say you can't help the helpless :rolleyes:

Thanks again,
Wilson
#9

the higher you dynamesh it the harder it will be able to smooth,
as long as you dont over dynmesh it, use this to polygroup it
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=140&t=1086013
once poly group hide the parts you dont want smooth or use Mask and blur mask
under tool>geometry>clay polish there is 2 soft sliders

and all so when you dynamesh it there is a Blur option to smooth it,
you may want to leave Project on in dynamesh and then again you may not

#10

Ahhhh, using poly groups to isolate what I’m smoothing. Great! Thanks for the suggestions man:)! I did uv unwrap this prior to import so perhaps I will try polygroup by uv’s then apply your suggestions!

Take care,
Ben

#11

better yet dynamesh it then tool>store morph target
then do your clay polish smoothing and the sharp edges you want back use
brush>morph , this will bring it back to the original shape,
use Z-intensity to adjust how much you want it to morph back,
if you add or remove polygons you will lose the morph.
http://i.imgur.com/w7ZwbXc.jpg

i would adjust the position / rotation of your mesh first because its not correct.
the image below i morph the large hole back to the original hard shape

polygroup using the combo slider plugin
http://i.imgur.com/oss6qFS.jpg

#12

Before I get back to you on the progress I am making with the bunker let me just say that your combo slider plugin is excellent:)

#13

Wll this is about as good as I could get it… Thanks for your help, I don’t know how much better I can do with the base shape smoothing. The detail from this HP version is to be baked onto a low poly version in xNormal so the little bit of pinching and the concave I couldn’t avoid can be removed in the HP detail normal map I make for the LP version.

#14

sorry i dont know about xNormal

#15

Hey thats cool man, I do know xNormal so I should be ok. I just wanna thank you again for all your help you gave me with your suggestions!

Take it easy,
Ben

#16

Basic feature detailing. Concrete detail spotlight polypaint/sculpting next…
(right click image and select view image for full resolution)

#17

looking good,
if you want Concrete detail, try
Tool>surface

#18

Excellent suggestion, thanks. Here is something I was wondering about:
You know how when you use spotlight to apply reference texture to surface of model as polypaint information? Well say I have 2 versions of ref texture (ref texture itself, as well as a bump map version of texture), is there a way to have ref texture used in spotlight as polypaint info, as well as the bump map version to be used simutaneously as the map to be used to bring out Zadd/Zsub detail?

If I simply use the ref texture as source for polypaint AND Zadd/ZSub the Zadd/Zsub detail that is brought out from ref texture is inaccurate due to the differences in the ref texture diffuse map/ref texture bump map. If I use bump map version of ref texture for both polypaint plus Zadd/Zsub then I am left with gray scale polypaint which requires color tint to be added manualy. This second method isn’t all that bad, however you don’t get the photo accurate color variation applied automatically as you would from using ref texture diffuse map.

Not really that big of a deal or workflow stopper, I was just wondering about this. It would be excellent if Spotlight allowed you to load 1 texture into a diffuse slot, 1 texture into a normal/bumpmap slot to be used simutaneously… Or am I missing something that allready exists within Spotlight or another area of ZBrush?

Anyhow cheers,
Ben

#19

with polypaint and spotlight only,
zadd on = bump
RGB on = texture color information
so zadd on with rgb will give you bump + color simutaneously

z-intensity slider= how much you want it to bump
Rgb-intensity slider= how much color you want to apply
you can all so change your stroke type to like dragRect.

this is just one of the ways, there is others like tool>mask>mask by color
and then tool>deformation>inflate

the image below was not done by masking but the first way i described above
http://i.imgur.com/wGW8vbM.jpg

#20

Right right, I get the part about RGB+ZAdd/ZSub on when using spotlight, however the diffuse texture you use for spotlight is more than often different then that of a bumpmap version of texture. Colors in the diffuse texture will add height/depth even if its something as simple as a flat stain on your cement texture, where as if you use bump map version of same texture the stain is not visible which means it does not contribute to ZAdd/ZSub deformation however you loose the nice diffuse color variation by only using grayscale bump map.

 Take the following image for example:
 
 The hole would become depth, the plaster detail would become bumpy height, however the stain would become depth which should actually just sit on the surface of the plaster and not contribute to height/depth.  This is why I thought it would be cool if spotlight had a feature to use one version of texture for polypaint (diffuse version), and another version of texture for height/depth (bump).
 [img]http://i.imgur.com/sXeHZY0.jpg[/img]
 
 Anyhow enough of my ramblings and wishful thinking.
 Ben