Sculpt mode shapes: Add shape memory so we can reuse custom shapes
We can store custom color so why not shape?
resizing custom shapes can be time intensive especially when hollowed.
In Sculpt mode add a sub menu for each shape type which would memorize any customized shapes one was required to use over again. much like the color tumbler it would store different values for dimensions, color, etc, only for customized shapes. This would add a great deal of functionality to sculpting and spraypainting
Ah that's what I thought you meant. That is a lot more doable, which is why I upvoted ^^
@Thyon To clarify I'm not talking about having any more than a single shape preset, so it would just be a single cube but with the settings of shape edit such as a stretch or hole edit saved.
The program already saves the last shape used so I really don't think this would be a problem for the memory. (Not asking for multiple shapes in a preset,) just simple ones for single shapes I can preset, so I don't have to set them up. it would be very useful to reuse curve shapes for example.
I think it's all down to performance. When you add a new shape like cube, sphere, etc., it's a really well-optimised math calculations to add/delete/blend into the previous scuplt structure. The editor only has to deal with that one shape doing it's thing. Now, if you have a composite shape (sphere segment) then it will need to replay the edits and recalculate all the sub-shapes for the custom shape you are using, for every frame white you're trying to stamp, smear or paint. This would be too high a cost. Already you can see it slowing down immensely when you blend a simple shape into a complex shape. So yeah, this isn't gonna happen I believe.
If it's a simple enough shape like 2-3 edits, maybe they would consider it. I really would want this feature.
Well it's an inkling of an idea anyways... I appreciate the concept being considered by you three at all.
I see alot of users complain about not being able to transfer materials over to a new sculpt (even tho this isn't really a big issue i think it confuses people) I'm thinking if there was even the ability to store a few preset shapes it could go a long ways in solving that plus a few new sculpting abilities.
either way I'm here till the party is over. :)
Is a good Idea, something like this was suggested in the early access. Basically you can make custom brushes, could be a bit like the colour mixer. Even if you could only use a few shapes would still be a useful tool.
@KemwerSeth & TAPgiles,
I think you are both right. I think it would be quite possible but probably not very user friendly. The idea of being able to merge sculpts would definitely be handy. That was a great example about using someone else's ear.
Negative edits are a hassle to deal with though, even in a single sculpt. That is why I try to rely on positive ones as much as I can, are far easier to adjust without affecting other things. Large negative edits probably would make importing/merging other sculptures/edits unusable in most cases sadly.
From my perspective I'd still like to see it, leave it up to the user to fix any problems. Although that probably isn't the best design decision for the game.
I'm not sure if this is possible or not with distance fields but how about if there was some sort of layer mask you could add? Like edits beyond this point don't affect edits preceding it.
NGL most of what you two are saying is way over my head but, I appreciate the discussion and your ideas on this matter. It's not as simple of a feature as I initially thought.
Yeah, I just don't think it's as big a deal as you suggest. I think my understanding of the engine is not that far off from yours, and I am aware of the issues you are describing, I just feel it's an acceptable shortcoming that can be easily dealt with in the majority of cases. So in my view it's not really a case of "it can't be done without reworking the entire engine pipeline", but "you can do it, but there will be some issues".
Tools having drawbacks don't make them useless or to be avoided, there are already many things within Dreams that cause issues that need to be addressed by the creator: emitting objects with logic can quickly cause a scene to use all available resources and soft-crash your game, but the solution is not to prohibit users from emitting objects with any logic in them, they just have to learn to work around that and optimize their game. That's only one case I can say from the top of my head.
For example, if you have a wall and append some fixture that happen to create a hole on the wall around it, you can duplicate the original wall sculpt, which will put it in the end of the edit stack, therefore fixing the hole. Sure, the more complex the objects you are merging more complex fixes might be required, but I personally think the benefits of such a system outweigh its problems, just like in the emitter situation above. And that's assuming this suggestion were to be implemented without any attempt to address these problems, which could potentially also be done without a need to modify how the engine itself works.
I also think that editing the sculpt history would be a desirable feature which would mostly allow users to solve any issues created by this feature, but that's a whole new can of worms. I think I voted for a similar suggestion in the past.
I have a good knowledge of how it works, yes. The reason it's not as simple as that is that each edit affects all others that came before it. So a negative edit will cut into all existing edits. If you just slapped that onto the end of another sculpt as part of the merged-in sculpt, it would cut into not just that merged-in sculpt shape but *all* of the edits that were there in the target sculpt.
Sounds like you are aware of that issue, but I guess don't think it's a problem? It's not like "oh, the user accidentally added a negative shape, so they can just delete it." The engine is promising they can use a sculpt and stamp it in another sculpt and it'll work as expected. If it doesn't work consistenty that's a huge UX problem. It will confuse people, it will be frustrating, it will mean that such a tool could not be used for some sculpts you want to merge in without there being any indication before you try it. Such a situation would be very poor UX, and Dreams is all about the UX. It's about making things accessible, working consistently and as expected as far as they can take it.
While "just stick the instructions on the end" might seem like an easy way of doing it, it would just be a buggy mess. And to make it actually usable and accessible and a *good* UX, it would require crazy maths solutions or rejigging the way sculpts are built to take all this into account.
Which is why I said it would require considerable reworking of the engine. I highly doubt Mm would stand for such a poor user experience for this. So they'd want to do it *right*, which would require a ton of work.
TAPgiles: I don't know if you have insider knowledge of how the engine works beyond the publicly available information, but why do you believe that it couldn't be done with the current engine?
What I'm suggesting is nothing beyond appending all edits from one sculpt after the full history of another, as if the user had manually added each positive/negative/color primitives manually. And just like on a manual process, any inconsistencies like negative shapes from the imported sculpt cutting into the existing one can be handled by the user by removing elements from the history, or adding new ones.
If you know as a fact, or can extrapolate of other possible issues, I would love to be aware of them in more detail.
Rabid: Yeah, that could work nicely.
Kewmer: Adding sculpts into other sculpts would require considerable reworking of the engine because of how it currently works, just so you're aware. I've suggested an alternative that would have a similar result for workflow but would be a lot more doable from a tech standpoint, I believe.
An afterthought to simplify this concept and possibly a better term: imagine having the ability to define 'shape presets' for example the curve shape. does that make more sense?
The basic idea would be much like how we can save paint in the tumbler, instead though, we would be able to save shapes, like say i had a hollowed half sphere of a specific size and I wanted to use this somewhere else in a another sculpt, I could hit save just like with the tumbler ...and this would head to a little sub menu in sculpt mode so I could have the consistent shape sizes etc.
I also like this idea of other properties being stored in the shape memory, or whatever the best terminology is, because it would make it very easy to grab a cloud sphere or a bush sphere and keep those flecks consistent. I apologize as the idea is a little cumbersome to explain. Though i think it would help a lot of different scenarios. thanks for listening and the votes
I think that instead of describing this as shape memory, I would say: sculpt stamping.
The same way we can stamp elements into a scene (including sculpts, paint, logic, etc), this would be stamping partial sculpts within another sculpt. Thinking about this way would also open the avenue for exporting and sharing partial sculpts, so if you're making a character's face but you're terrible at making ears or noses... just stamp an ear or nose sculpt from another user into your head model.
Sounds interesting. Not sure what you mean, however?
Another issue relating to this, is working in very large or very small scales. Resizing different shapes to accommodate large scale differences can be painstaking. Some type of shape memory, even rudimentary, would enable a much faster workflow at different scales.